Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
Alias,

I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought
I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll
respond.

SNIP

I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use in
regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is where we
disagree.


Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair
use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An
ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money
than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so.
As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation)
one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every
thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what
they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break
the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally
binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END
USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.


I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery,
marijuana, etc. and you had no comment.


Yes, I did, it was near the bottom of the last post. By the way, your
analogy to Prohibition is incorrect. The alcohol manufacturers were not the
ones restricting access to their own product. The alcohol manufacturers
never said we could buy a bottle of booze but had to consume it ourselves
without sharing it. The government was trying to tell us we could not
consume alcohol. The same thing goes for marijuana. It is not the drug
smugglers and dealers who are asking you not to share their product.

In the case of this thread, the manufacturer has an agreement between itself
and its end users only to use the software on one computer per purchased
license. That is not even remotely close to your off-base arguments.

You compare the CHOICE of whether or not to use software and people being
FORCED into slavery? And you riduculed ME for bad analogies? Give me a
break!




If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change,
Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.


Trust me, Microsoft knows that people disagree with them, and the massive
pirating by those people who disagree with them has led directly to the
anti-piracy measures in their software today. You (pirates) have brought
this upon yourselves by your dishonesty, lack of morals, and lack of ethics.




I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did not
steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal
consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take something
that belongs to someone else.


Good for you. I commend you for not stealing when you were poor. However,
you advocate doing it now, but you call it "fair use." Fair to whom? Only to
software pirates. Something that is "fair" benefits both parties.




See the difference?



No, I don't see the difference, because there is none. You just stated that
again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that
belongs to someone else." In the case of Microsoft's XP software, there is
an END USER License Agreement, a document that binds the manufacturer and
the END USER, YOU, to an agreement before you use their software. This
agreement is between YOU and the manufacturer, regardless of the country in
which you live, or the laws of that country. That agreement gives you
permission to install the software on ONE computer. If you violate the terms
of that agreement, and you install the software on multiple computers, YOU
have just taken "something that belongs to someone else," which is the
license for a single use of the product. YOU have been saying that it is OK
to do that throughout this entire thread, and you call it "fair use." Yes,
you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to you...a license to
use the software.

Gregg







Alias





"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:

You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am
done with you.

Gregg
Promises, promises.

How come you didn't see fit to reply to this?:

You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your
mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle
your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400
euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a
store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you
is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing
and do no time.

You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England,
stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if
caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel.

To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't
agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them:

Prohibition

Segregation of blacks

Revolutionary War

Slavery

Marijuana.

Etc.

Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one
could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and
Texas could still give you life for one joint.

Alias

I certainly hope you do not equate any of the above with using software
on a computer, which is a total luxury.

My logic would in no way condone slavery. While I do not have faith in
God, the Bible still has **tremendous** value in its teachings, such as
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even though I do not
have faith in God, I do realize that it isn't rocket science to know that
you should treat people as you would want them to treat you. If you do
not want to be owned, abused, whipped, or killed, then you should not
own, abuse, whip, or kill someone else. (Yes, that is a huge
over-simplification of slavery, but the discussion is not about that
travesty in our history). The principal applies to software. If you don't
want people stealing from you, don't steal from people (or from
Microsoft).

I am adamantly against alcohol because of the damage I have seen it do to
my friends and to others, but I would not say that no one can drink it.
It just enrages me that some piece of garbage kills an entire family with
his car because he wanted to drink a beer. That beer was more valuable to
him than a human life, and that is just plain twisted.

The US would not be a colony of England, because when those people left
England to come here and start a new life, the British government had no
right to come here and force them to obey the laws of Britain. We had
every right to kick their butts out of here. Of course, the ones who came
here had no right to screw the Indians, but that is a whole other thread.

And as for getting life for one joint, man, I hope not, or our
ex-toking(?) President would be in deep doo-doo! Sorry, GW, that just
slipped out!

I do not look at our planet as you do, with divisional lines drawn on a
map. That only leads to people hating each other just because the other
guy lives on a different piece of dirt, or worships a different deity. I
hate to break the news to you, but you are a human first, then a person
of a certain country and/or religion, or lack thereof. If all lines on
all maps got erased, and all religions ceased to exist, all you would
have left is a bunch of humans living on a big wet rock in space. You can
change your country, you can change your religion, but you cannot change
the fact that you are a human being. Look at it that way and you see the
fallacy of war, stealing from other people, hating your neighbor because
he is Muslim or she is Christian, etc.

Is it OK with you if I do not respond any further and actually spend my
time doing some work, or having fun with my wife? In closing, moral
values are something you choose. I choose to keep mine where they are and
treat people as I would have them treat me.

Take care, Alias!

Gregg

"The way to protest ripoff policies and oppressive software licenses is to
actively support open source software."

Now there is a statement that makes sense (albeit a tad paranoid in its
wording) and goes along with my previous statement that if you don't like
the EULA, don't use the product.

Every XP pirate out there could simply use a free form of Linux and be done
with Microsoft, but instead, they choose to steal.

Gregg



"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.11.16.22.35.137519@goawayspammers .com...
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:04:03 +0000, Leythos wrote:

In article ,
says...
You think they are both stealing and this is where we disagree. I
compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery,
marijuana, etc. and you had no comment. If everyone lock steps to
Microsoft's rules not only will they not change, Microsoft will believe
everyone agrees with them.

Most people that are ethical know that they can protest and argue without
breaking the rules/laws - there is nothing to stop you from protesting
without breaking the rules/laws.

That's not always the case, but it is here. The way to protest ripoff
policies and oppressive software licenses is to actively support open
source software. That both provides an alternative now, and encourages
the software industry to change its greedy ways as it loses market
share to OSS. Pirating commercial software only provides an excuse for
ever more draconian laws and technologies.

The same is true in music. There are many great indie groups out there who
charge good prices and don't DRM their music AND let you preview the
entire album for free. A good site for those who haven't tried the
Indie groups yet is http://www.magnatunes.com, where you can try,
download, and are even encouraged to help distribute, 128-bps MP3's of
complete albums. If you like the music, the cost of a CD-quality bitrate
is whatever you feel it's worth, down to a minimum of $5 per album.

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
Alias,

I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought
I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll
respond.

SNIP
I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use in
regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is where we
disagree.


Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair
use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An
ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money
than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so.
As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation)
one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every
thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what
they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break
the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally
binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END
USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.

Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime. The logical course of action is for MS to
take the individual to court in order to enforce their license. But MS
doesn't. They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
Alias,

I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought
I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll
respond.

SNIP
I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use in
regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is where we
disagree.


Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair
use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An
ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money
than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so.
As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation)
one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every
thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what
they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break
the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally
binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END
USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.


I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery,
marijuana, etc. and you had no comment.


Yes, I did, it was near the bottom of the last post. By the way, your
analogy to Prohibition is incorrect. The alcohol manufacturers were not the
ones restricting access to their own product. The alcohol manufacturers
never said we could buy a bottle of booze but had to consume it ourselves
without sharing it. The government was trying to tell us we could not
consume alcohol. The same thing goes for marijuana. It is not the drug
smugglers and dealers who are asking you not to share their product.

In the case of this thread, the manufacturer has an agreement between itself
and its end users only to use the software on one computer per purchased
license. That is not even remotely close to your off-base arguments.

You compare the CHOICE of whether or not to use software and people being
FORCED into slavery? And you riduculed ME for bad analogies? Give me a
break!




If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change,
Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.


Trust me, Microsoft knows that people disagree with them, and the massive
pirating by those people who disagree with them has led directly to the
anti-piracy measures in their software today. You (pirates) have brought
this upon yourselves by your dishonesty, lack of morals, and lack of ethics.




I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did not
steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal
consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take something
that belongs to someone else.


Good for you. I commend you for not stealing when you were poor. However,
you advocate doing it now, but you call it "fair use." Fair to whom? Only to
software pirates. Something that is "fair" benefits both parties.




See the difference?



No, I don't see the difference,

What a surprise.

because there is none. You just stated that
again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that
belongs to someone else."

Um, how can I take something I already have?

In the case of Microsoft's XP software, there is
an END USER License Agreement, a document that binds the manufacturer and
the END USER, YOU, to an agreement before you use their software. This
agreement is between YOU and the manufacturer, regardless of the country in
which you live, or the laws of that country. That agreement gives you
permission to install the software on ONE computer. If you violate the terms
of that agreement, and you install the software on multiple computers, YOU
have just taken "something that belongs to someone else,"

No, can't take something I already have and contract disputes are not
crimes.

which is the
license for a single use of the product. YOU have been saying that it is OK
to do that throughout this entire thread, and you call it "fair use." Yes,
you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to you...a license to
use the software.

Gregg

I already have the license. Contract disputes from my not agreeing but
installing anyway, is not, I'm afraid, stealing.

Alias







Alias




"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am
done with you.

Gregg
Promises, promises.

How come you didn't see fit to reply to this?:

You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your
mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle
your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400
euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a
store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you
is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing
and do no time.

You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England,
stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if
caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel.

To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't
agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them:

Prohibition

Segregation of blacks

Revolutionary War

Slavery

Marijuana.

Etc.

Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one
could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and
Texas could still give you life for one joint.

Alias
I certainly hope you do not equate any of the above with using software
on a computer, which is a total luxury.

My logic would in no way condone slavery. While I do not have faith in
God, the Bible still has **tremendous** value in its teachings, such as
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even though I do not
have faith in God, I do realize that it isn't rocket science to know that
you should treat people as you would want them to treat you. If you do
not want to be owned, abused, whipped, or killed, then you should not
own, abuse, whip, or kill someone else. (Yes, that is a huge
over-simplification of slavery, but the discussion is not about that
travesty in our history). The principal applies to software. If you don't
want people stealing from you, don't steal from people (or from
Microsoft).

I am adamantly against alcohol because of the damage I have seen it do to
my friends and to others, but I would not say that no one can drink it.
It just enrages me that some piece of garbage kills an entire family with
his car because he wanted to drink a beer. That beer was more valuable to
him than a human life, and that is just plain twisted.

The US would not be a colony of England, because when those people left
England to come here and start a new life, the British government had no
right to come here and force them to obey the laws of Britain. We had
every right to kick their butts out of here. Of course, the ones who came
here had no right to screw the Indians, but that is a whole other thread.

And as for getting life for one joint, man, I hope not, or our
ex-toking(?) President would be in deep doo-doo! Sorry, GW, that just
slipped out!

I do not look at our planet as you do, with divisional lines drawn on a
map. That only leads to people hating each other just because the other
guy lives on a different piece of dirt, or worships a different deity. I
hate to break the news to you, but you are a human first, then a person
of a certain country and/or religion, or lack thereof. If all lines on
all maps got erased, and all religions ceased to exist, all you would
have left is a bunch of humans living on a big wet rock in space. You can
change your country, you can change your religion, but you cannot change
the fact that you are a human being. Look at it that way and you see the
fallacy of war, stealing from other people, hating your neighbor because
he is Muslim or she is Christian, etc.

Is it OK with you if I do not respond any further and actually spend my
time doing some work, or having fun with my wife? In closing, moral
values are something you choose. I choose to keep mine where they are and
treat people as I would have them treat me.

Take care, Alias!

Gregg

Nina DiBoy wrote:


Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime.


All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.


The logical course of action is for MS to
take the individual to court in order to enforce their license. But MS
doesn't.


This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft to
actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead, they
only go after the "big fish."


They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or actively
participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that makes such
copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people weren't
dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel the need
to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual property.
Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to protect
their own interests.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Very well stated, Bruce.

Gregg Hill


"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...
Nina DiBoy wrote:


Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime.


All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.


The logical course of action is for MS to take the individual to court in
order to enforce their license. But MS doesn't.


This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft to
actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead, they
only go after the "big fish."


They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or actively
participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that makes such
copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people weren't
dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel the need
to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual property.
Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to protect their
own interests.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand
Russell

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote:


Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the
license and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between
that party and MS. It is not a crime.


All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are
also demonstrating a lack of integrity.



The logical course of action is for MS to take the individual to court
in order to enforce their license. But MS doesn't.


This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft
to actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead,
they only go after the "big fish."

Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the
fact that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it
should not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.



They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people
weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel
the need to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual
property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to
protect their own interests.



So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
Alias,

I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I
thought I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion,
I'll respond.

SNIP
I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use
in regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is
where we disagree.


Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is
"fair use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has.
An ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more
money than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to
do so. As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or
compenstation) one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen.
I'll bet that every thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they
were justified in what they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you
break the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is
legally binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller
and the END USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and
simple.


I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery,
marijuana, etc. and you had no comment.


Yes, I did, it was near the bottom of the last post. By the way, your
analogy to Prohibition is incorrect. The alcohol manufacturers were not
the ones restricting access to their own product. The alcohol
manufacturers never said we could buy a bottle of booze but had to
consume it ourselves without sharing it. The government was trying to
tell us we could not consume alcohol. The same thing goes for marijuana.
It is not the drug smugglers and dealers who are asking you not to share
their product.

In the case of this thread, the manufacturer has an agreement between
itself and its end users only to use the software on one computer per
purchased license. That is not even remotely close to your off-base
arguments.

You compare the CHOICE of whether or not to use software and people being
FORCED into slavery? And you riduculed ME for bad analogies? Give me a
break!




If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not
change, Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.


Trust me, Microsoft knows that people disagree with them, and the massive
pirating by those people who disagree with them has led directly to the
anti-piracy measures in their software today. You (pirates) have brought
this upon yourselves by your dishonesty, lack of morals, and lack of
ethics.




I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did
not steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal
consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take
something that belongs to someone else.


Good for you. I commend you for not stealing when you were poor. However,
you advocate doing it now, but you call it "fair use." Fair to whom? Only
to software pirates. Something that is "fair" benefits both parties.




See the difference?



No, I don't see the difference,

What a surprise.

because there is none. You just stated that
again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that
belongs to someone else."

Um, how can I take something I already have?


Because what you "have" is ONE license for ONE computer. If you install it
on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you.
You do NOT "have" multiple licenses.




In the case of Microsoft's XP software, there is an END USER License
Agreement, a document that binds the manufacturer and the END USER, YOU,
to an agreement before you use their software. This agreement is between
YOU and the manufacturer, regardless of the country in which you live, or
the laws of that country. That agreement gives you permission to install
the software on ONE computer. If you violate the terms of that agreement,
and you install the software on multiple computers, YOU have just taken
"something that belongs to someone else,"

No, can't take something I already have and contract disputes are not
crimes.


Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was
made about it being a single license.

If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a
license that does not belong to you. It does not have to be a crime to be
stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone
else." The additional installations you do on your other computers are
taking a license from Microsoft, because the ONE license you bought and now
"have" only covers ONE installation. Any installations beyond that ONE are
taking from Microsoft. You do not "have" multiple licenses. You admited that
it would be a contract dispute. Why would it be? Duh, because YOU are
violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more
than one computer. So, again, you are taking something that does not belong
to you. You are stealing. And again, so you can comprehend the concept, it
does not have to be illegal, a crime, or whatever term you choose to give it
in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and stealing, regardless of where
you live. If Microsoft is not being paid each time that XP gets installed on
a separate computer, then it is not fair to them, and by definition is NOT
"fair use." Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.
Something that is "fair" has to benefit BOTH parties involved in order to
meet the definition of fairness, which software piracy (copying) does not
do.

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




which is the license for a single use of the product. YOU have been
saying that it is OK to do that throughout this entire thread, and you
call it "fair use." Yes, you DO advocate taking something that does not
belong to you...a license to use the software.

Gregg

I already have the license. Contract disputes from my not agreeing but
installing anyway, is not, I'm afraid, stealing.

Alias







Alias




"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am
done with you.

Gregg
Promises, promises.

How come you didn't see fit to reply to this?:

You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your
mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle
your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400
euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a
store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you
is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing
and do no time.

You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England,
stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and,
if caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for
cruel.

To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people
don't agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them:

Prohibition

Segregation of blacks

Revolutionary War

Slavery

Marijuana.

Etc.

Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one
could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and
Texas could still give you life for one joint.

Alias
I certainly hope you do not equate any of the above with using software
on a computer, which is a total luxury.

My logic would in no way condone slavery. While I do not have faith in
God, the Bible still has **tremendous** value in its teachings, such as
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even though I do
not have faith in God, I do realize that it isn't rocket science to
know that you should treat people as you would want them to treat you.
If you do not want to be owned, abused, whipped, or killed, then you
should not own, abuse, whip, or kill someone else. (Yes, that is a huge
over-simplification of slavery, but the discussion is not about that
travesty in our history). The principal applies to software. If you
don't want people stealing from you, don't steal from people (or from
Microsoft).

I am adamantly against alcohol because of the damage I have seen it do
to my friends and to others, but I would not say that no one can drink
it. It just enrages me that some piece of garbage kills an entire
family with his car because he wanted to drink a beer. That beer was
more valuable to him than a human life, and that is just plain twisted.

The US would not be a colony of England, because when those people left
England to come here and start a new life, the British government had
no right to come here and force them to obey the laws of Britain. We
had every right to kick their butts out of here. Of course, the ones
who came here had no right to screw the Indians, but that is a whole
other thread.

And as for getting life for one joint, man, I hope not, or our
ex-toking(?) President would be in deep doo-doo! Sorry, GW, that just
slipped out!

I do not look at our planet as you do, with divisional lines drawn on a
map. That only leads to people hating each other just because the other
guy lives on a different piece of dirt, or worships a different deity.
I hate to break the news to you, but you are a human first, then a
person of a certain country and/or religion, or lack thereof. If all
lines on all maps got erased, and all religions ceased to exist, all
you would have left is a bunch of humans living on a big wet rock in
space. You can change your country, you can change your religion, but
you cannot change the fact that you are a human being. Look at it that
way and you see the fallacy of war, stealing from other people, hating
your neighbor because he is Muslim or she is Christian, etc.

Is it OK with you if I do not respond any further and actually spend my
time doing some work, or having fun with my wife? In closing, moral
values are something you choose. I choose to keep mine where they are
and treat people as I would have them treat me.

Take care, Alias!

Gregg

Nina,

Whether or not you agree with the EULA is not issue. If you do not agree to
it, go use Linux, but do NOT use the software with which you disagree to the
EULA.

If you use it against the EULA, you are stealing, no matter if **you** think
the EULA is flawed. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. Use an
alternative with which you do agree.

More below.


"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote:


Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime.


All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are also
demonstrating a lack of integrity.



Just because MS wants to be paid for each installation of their XP product,
you say that is unconscionable. How is that a lack of integrity? Being paid
for work done is a basic human decency and is expected by everyone who works
for a living.








The logical course of action is for MS to take the individual to court
in order to enforce their license. But MS doesn't.


This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft
to actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead,
they only go after the "big fish."

Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the fact
that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it should
not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.


They are not making it the consumers' problem, at least not if that consumer
has the ethics to follow the license that was purchased.







They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people
weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel
the need to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual
property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to
protect their own interests.



So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

I disagree with Bruce stating that the average consumer tolerates, condones,
etc, the unethical behavior of others. However, his comment that "If so very
many people weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers
wouldn't feel the need to take such draconian measures to protect their
intellectual property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses
trying to protect their own interests." is right on the money.

When terrorists try to blow up planes, we all pay for the inconvenience at
our airports. Who do we blame for that? The government for trying to protect
us, or the *******s who started it all? Microsoft is trying to protect
itself from pirates, and we all have to deal with it. Thank every unethical
person you know for that inconvenience, but stop blaming Microsoft.


Gregg

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
snip
No, I don't see the difference,
What a surprise.

because there is none. You just stated that
again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that
belongs to someone else."
Um, how can I take something I already have?


Because what you "have" is ONE license for ONE computer. If you install it
on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you.
You do NOT "have" multiple licenses.

Actually I have a physical CD which is not a license.

snip
No, can't take something I already have and contract disputes are not
crimes.


Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was
made about it being a single license.

If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a
license that does not belong to you.

Nope, one would not be taking anything from MS. If one was making
copies and selling them with the key without being a reseller, that
would be stealing.

Name one court case where in any person using software for
non-commercial purposes in the privacy of their own home not strictly in
line with the license has been taken to court and lost.

It does not have to be a crime to be
stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone
else." The additional installations you do on your other computers are
taking a license from Microsoft, because the ONE license you bought and now
"have" only covers ONE installation. Any installations beyond that ONE are
taking from Microsoft.

Taking what from MS?

You do not "have" multiple licenses. You admited that
it would be a contract dispute. Why would it be? Duh, because YOU are
violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more
than one computer.

It's not technically a contract dispute until MS takes one to courrt
over it.

So, again, you are taking something that does not belong
to you. You are stealing. And again, so you can comprehend the concept, it
does not have to be illegal, a crime, or whatever term you choose to give it
in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and stealing, regardless of where
you live. If Microsoft is not being paid each time that XP gets installed on
a separate computer, then it is not fair to them, and by definition is NOT
"fair use." Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.
Something that is "fair" has to benefit BOTH parties involved in order to
meet the definition of fairness, which software piracy (copying) does not
do.

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

Snip

No, I advocate that the EULA from MS for windows is unconscionable. No
shady company like MS has the right to infringe on my fair use rights or
to tell me how to use something I own in the privacy of my own home.

Nina DiBoy wrote:


The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA.


Please name one American court that has found Microsoft's Eula
"unconsionable."


They are
also demonstrating a lack of integrity.


So, "two wrongs make a right?" That's got to be about the worst excuse
for dishonesty in the world.


Snipped...


Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people
weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't
feel the need to take such draconian measures to protect their
intellectual property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the
businesses trying to protect their own interests.



So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.


Did I use the word "criminal?" To be a criminal, one must actually
break a law, which we've already determined is irrelevant to the
discussion. However, all one need do is look around to see how many
people are "ethically-challenged." Most seem to think that as long as
they don't get caught (or punished when caught) that they'd done nothing
wrong.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Gregg Hill wrote:
Nina,

Whether or not you agree with the EULA is not issue. If you do not agree to
it, go use Linux, but do NOT use the software with which you disagree to the
EULA.

I do use linux for somethings. And whether I agree with the EULA *IS*
the issue. If more consumers were educated comsumers like Alias and
myself, they wouldn't blindly let MS bend them over the table with it's
EULA.


If you use it against the EULA, you are stealing, no matter if **you** think
the EULA is flawed. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. Use an
alternative with which you do agree.

A contract dispute does not equal stealing. That is not officially
determined until it is decided in a court of law.


More below.

"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote:

Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.
The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are also
demonstrating a lack of integrity.

Just because MS wants to be paid for each installation of their XP product,
you say that is unconscionable. How is that a lack of integrity? Being paid
for work done is a basic human decency and is expected by everyone who works
for a living.

And I'm sure that that's exactly what MS was thinking everytime they
committed patent infringement, right?
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5062409.html

MS has lost numerous patent infringement cases, and each one makes them
more guilty of IP theft.


The logical course of action is for MS to take the individual to court
in order to enforce their license. But MS doesn't.

This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft
to actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead,
they only go after the "big fish."
Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the fact
that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it should
not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.


They are not making it the consumers' problem, at least not if that consumer
has the ethics to follow the license that was purchased.

They are making it the consumers' problem, with WPA, WGA, WGAN and all
of the other buggy DRM use limiting controls they try to put into their
software.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142

WGA shows a %42 error rate in one of MS's own studies. Tell me that's
not making it the consumers' problem. They pay the expensive prices
that MS charges for their OS. Then they %42 can't use it because of the
buggy DRM WGA crap in it?


They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.
Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people
weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel
the need to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual
property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to
protect their own interests.

So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

I disagree with Bruce stating that the average consumer tolerates, condones,
etc, the unethical behavior of others. However, his comment that "If so very
many people weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers
wouldn't feel the need to take such draconian measures to protect their
intellectual property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses
trying to protect their own interests." is right on the money.

When terrorists try to blow up planes, we all pay for the inconvenience at
our airports. Who do we blame for that? The government for trying to protect
us, or the *******s who started it all? Microsoft is trying to protect
itself from pirates, and we all have to deal with it. Thank every unethical
person you know for that inconvenience, but stop blaming Microsoft.

Gregg

I also disagree with Bruce, yet you respond to his post with, "Very well
stated Bruce"

Yeah right.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:40:06 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

Again you have missed the point. Whether or not there is law, morality and
ethics still exist. If you cannot comprehend that fact, then stop reading
now.

I stated it about as clearly as it can be said:

How can ignoring the EULA and making copies for your friends be
immoral if the seller, by entering the market, has agreed
that the EULA isn't binding and that buyers can make copies for their
friends?

Now what part of that don't you understand?

The EULA, which stands for END USER License Agreement, is an agreement
between the END USER and Microsoft. The END USER technically agrees to the
END USER License Agreement before he/she can use the software.

You're sitting in a room, just you and a computer. You read a bunch of
text (which, BTW, both you and Microsoft know not to be illegally binding
in your country), and then click on the "I Agree" button in order to get
the software to install. With whom have you made that agreement? There's
nobody from Microsoft present, Microsoft doesn't know if you've read the
agreement, they don't know that you clicked "I Agree", they don't even
know that you and your computer exist. All that's in the room is you and a
computer.

Now maybe *you* feel morally obligated to respect promises made to an
inanimate object, but I don't think most other people do.

Now if that END USER copies the software and gives it to friends or
installs it multiple times, the END USER has violated the agreement.
Here is where ethics and morality step up to the plate. An ethical and
moral END USER does not have to jump up and down and claim that his
country's law allows him to go against the END USER License Agreement.
An ethical and moral END USER abides by the END USER License Agreement,

First you have to show how it would be immoral to ignore the EULA in
a country where it is invalidated by law. So far you've failed to do that.

regardless of whether or not that agreement is legally binding in one's
country of residence, simply because the manufacturer of the product has
the right to determine how many times it is to be installed per license
purchased. An ethical and moral end user knows that there is a choice:
abide by it, or do not use it.

Show me one EULA that claims that, "We, the seller, by entering the
market, have agreed that the EULA isn't binding and that buyers can make
copies for their friends" and I will agree with you. Why? Because at
that point the manufacturer would be giving permission to make the
copies. SO far, no EULA I have seen does that.

Show me a country where a business can freely ignore the local laws unless
it agrees in its own EULA to obey them.

Not to mention that you seem to have missed the overall point of this
entire thread, i.e., that this thread is about the leaked volume license
keys and the pirates that use them.

I'm only refuting your position that people have a moral obligation to
obey a EULA even when it's invalidated by the laws of their country.

In those cases, not one of the people using a key has paid for it, so
EVERY use of it is unethical and immoral, if not illegal, regardless of
the country of residence.

That depends on the country's laws and treaties and their citizens'
religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

As far as returns, the store will always hassle you, but the
manufacturer will take it back, at least in my experience.

Your experience doesn't seem to be the same as everyone else's experience.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:28:04 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

"The way to protest ripoff policies and oppressive software licenses is to
actively support open source software."

Now there is a statement that makes sense (albeit a tad paranoid in its
wording)

Well, you're hardly going to change operating systems because of
good policies and favorable licenses...

And goes along with my previous statement that if you don't like
the EULA, don't use the product.

Every XP pirate out there could simply use a free form of Linux and be
done with Microsoft, but instead, they choose to steal.

Yep. I'm just disagreeing with your statements concerning morality and
EULA's. That doesn't mean I think people *should* pirate Windows. Heck,
I don't even think they should use legit copies. :-)

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote:

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA.

Please name one American court that has found Microsoft's Eula
"unconsionable."

It has not been tried yet because MS has yet to pursue a person breaking
their license for non-commercial use in the privacy of their own home.


They are also demonstrating a lack of integrity.

So, "two wrongs make a right?" That's got to be about the worst
excuse for dishonesty in the world.

Again, you should be telling that to the hypocrasy known as MS because
they have lost many IP theft suits, and yet are also in antitrust
trouble the world over, so not only are they ripping off consumers, but
they are pirating the technology of other companies too.

Snipped...

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. If so very many
people weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers
wouldn't feel the need to take such draconian measures to protect
their intellectual property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the
businesses trying to protect their own interests.



So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as
MS does, that everyone's a criminal.

Did I use the word "criminal?" To be a criminal, one must actually
break a law, which we've already determined is irrelevant to the
discussion. However, all one need do is look around to see how many
people are "ethically-challenged." Most seem to think that as long as
they don't get caught (or punished when caught) that they'd done nothing
wrong.


I don't see anything wrong with protecting my fair use rights and my
civil liberties. I'm sorry you see that as unethical.