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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional VolumeLicenseEdition
Nina, Aren't you tired yet arguing about a topic that is always contentious no matter who you are talking to. This thread will go on and on unless somebody decides that enough is enough!! On the one hand you will get MVPs and uncle bill's supporters (who agree with each other on every count), and on the other hand you get people who think it is their right to use any software they like without paying for it. Both parties are right depending on in which country they are based. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it is time to move on from this topic. My two cent worth!! Nina DiBoy wrote: |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:57:09 -0700, Bruce Chambers wrote:
So, "two wrongs make a right?" That's got to be about the worst excuse for dishonesty in the world. It's not a question of making a "right" or a "wrong" out of anything. It's simply a matter of the other party having changed the rules by which the two of you behave: "If they play by ruleset X then I'll play by ruleset X. If they change to ruleset Y, then I'll change to ruleset Y so we're both playing by the same rules". |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
ANONYMOUS wrote:
Nina, Aren't you tired yet arguing about a topic that is always contentious no matter who you are talking to. This thread will go on and on unless somebody decides that enough is enough!! On the one hand you will get MVPs and uncle bill's supporters (who agree with each other on every count), and on the other hand you get people who think it is their right to use any software they like without paying for it. Both parties are right depending on in which country they are based. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it is time to move on from this topic. My two cent worth!! That's fair anonymous. I respect your opinion. I do reject the assumption that I am one of those people who "think it is their right to use any software they like without paying for it" though. Let it be on record that I have paid for every windows OS I have installed on a computer in my own home. I am simply trying to express my opinion that the MS EULA for Windows is unconscionable. And no, I don't really get tired to having productive conversation about this. Nina DiBoy wrote: |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them."
Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. -- Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+, Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc., CIW Certified Instructor "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. 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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
"What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase
the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA." Trust me, the folks on the other side of the fence (the pirates) forgot that fact a long time ago. NO amount of reasoning has yet to convince them otherwise. An ethical person understands it readily and abides by his or word (agreeing to the EULA). They do not. My Dad used to tell me that a man is only as good as his word, and now I understand that more than ever. Gregg Hill "Michael D. Alligood" wrote in message ... As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. -- Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+, Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc., CIW Certified Instructor "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. 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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:54:53 +0000, Michael D. Alligood wrote:
As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. The Vista EULA suggests otherwise. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. Some courts have ruled that no matter what the EULA says, you are indeed purchasing the software and not just a license to use it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand lawyers... ( |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Nina,
Read your EULA, the one to which you must agree before you use the software. You have purchased the **right to use** ONE installation of the code on the CD. You have NOT purchased the code itself. Gregg "Nina DiBoy" wrote in message ... 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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
"arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2006.11.11.23.07.56.379663@goawayspammers .com... On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:54:53 +0000, Michael D. Alligood wrote: As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. The Vista EULA suggests otherwise. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. Some courts have ruled that no matter what the EULA says, you are indeed purchasing the software and not just a license to use it. See: But you, as an individual, agree to the EULA in order to use the software in accordance with that EULA. Either you are an ethical person and you honor your agreement, are you are unethical and you do not honor it, and you in effect steal the license for the additional computers onto which you install XP. If you took that software to a country that has no laws, or to the Moon to use it, agreeing to the EULA would still bind an ethical person. Gregg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand lawyers... ( |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message ... 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. Using that line of thinking, if I buy one TV from a store, then take 90 more and give them to my friends without being paid anything for them, I am not stealing. Interesting. Your statement is incorrect and should read, "If one were making copies and **distributing them** with the key without being a reseller **or under any other circumstances,** that would be stealing." Anyone who uses it without a vlaid license is in effect stealing it. In principal, it is no different than walking into a computer store and buying one XP package, then stuffing 30 more into a bag, walking out the door, and giving them to anyone who wants one. You paid for one license, but you took 30 others to distribute. Whether for profit or not, it is unethical, even if it is not illegal. Would you do that? Why not? The end result is the same. One was purchased, the rest were stolen. 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. I have said over and over again that a law need not exist to make something wrong. To site a Biblical example (not to thump a Bible, but just to prove a point), when Cain killed Abel, there were no lasws against murder. Was it OK to kill his brother, then? 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. If I sign a contract and go against it, but the person wronged decides not to pursue it, I have still breached my agreement. I would still be unethical. The person wronged does not have to prove my lack of ethics in court for it to be an unethical act. 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. Then you should not agree to it, then renege on your word. You should avoid the product and use only other manufacturers' software. 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. Actually, they have every right. They developed the software. If you feel they have no right, you should not use the product. Why do your "fair use rights" overrule those of the people who put in the time to write the product? Because you are unethical. Gregg |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Michael D. Alligood wrote:
As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". First of all, I do not and will never adopt the EULA as a law or a prescribed "law". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. Actions speak louder than words. All this buggy DRM that MS employs in their software is the action they are taking to show that they treat their paying customers like pirates. They do this instead of standing up for their EULA and taking the pirates to court. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. Which is an unconscionable license put out by a corporation which has been sued (and lost) for alot more crap than I personally have been. -- Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+, Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc., CIW Certified Instructor "Nina DiBoy" wrote in message : snip |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Use something different then. Suggestions include but are not limited to
Apple, UNIX, Linux, and whatever else you can stea... (borr... I mean own. -- Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+, Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc., CIW Certified Instructor "arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2006.11.11.23.07.56.379663@goawayspammers .com: On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:54:53 +0000, Michael D. Alligood wrote: As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. The Vista EULA suggests otherwise. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. Some courts have ruled that no matter what the EULA says, you are indeed purchasing the software and not just a license to use it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand lawyers... ( |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
Nina, Read your EULA, the one to which you must agree before you use the software. You have purchased the **right to use** ONE installation of the code on the CD. You have NOT purchased the code itself. Gregg snip I do not in principle agree with the EULA. I never have. I never have violated the EULA either. That being said, if I ever needed to in order to preserve my fair use rights, I would. Especially since the EULA is unconscionable. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
snip Using that line of thinking, if I buy one TV from a store, then take 90 more and give them to my friends without being paid anything for them, I am not stealing. Interesting. Not an applicable comparison. TVs are a physical item. A license is not a physical item. Your statement is incorrect and should read, "If one were making copies and **distributing them** with the key without being a reseller **or under any other circumstances,** that would be stealing." Anyone who uses it without a vlaid license is in effect stealing it. In principal, it is no different than walking into a computer store and buying one XP package, then stuffing 30 more into a bag, walking out the door, and giving them to anyone who wants one. You paid for one license, but you took 30 others to distribute. Whether for profit or not, it is unethical, even if it is not illegal. Would you do that? Why not? The end result is the same. One was purchased, the rest were stolen. Again, not a realistic comparison. Retail theft does not equate to preserving one's fair use rights. 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. I have said over and over again that a law need not exist to make something wrong. To site a Biblical example (not to thump a Bible, but just to prove a point), when Cain killed Abel, there were no lasws against murder. Was it OK to kill his brother, then? Yet again, not a realistic comparison. Murder does not equate to preserving one's fair use rights. snip If I sign a contract and go against it, but the person wronged decides not to pursue it, I have still breached my agreement. I would still be unethical. The person wronged does not have to prove my lack of ethics in court for it to be an unethical act. Does this negate the fact that it is unethical to infringe upon one's fair use rights with a license to begin with? snip No, I advocate that the EULA from MS for windows is unconscionable. Then you should not agree to it, then renege on your word. You should avoid the product and use only other manufacturers' software. I said I don't agree to it in principle. I have not broken it. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
And somehow that makes stealing from them OK. Right.
Gregg "Nina DiBoy" wrote in message ... Michael D. Alligood wrote: As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". First of all, I do not and will never adopt the EULA as a law or a prescribed "law". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. Actions speak louder than words. All this buggy DRM that MS employs in their software is the action they are taking to show that they treat their paying customers like pirates. They do this instead of standing up for their EULA and taking the pirates to court. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. Which is an unconscionable license put out by a corporation which has been sued (and lost) for alot more crap than I personally have been. -- Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+, Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc., CIW Certified Instructor "Nina DiBoy" wrote in message : snip |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:14:12 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:
"arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2006.11.11.23.07.56.379663@goawayspammers .com... On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:54:53 +0000, Michael D. Alligood wrote: As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them." Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed "laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. The Vista EULA suggests otherwise. What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA. Some courts have ruled that no matter what the EULA says, you are indeed purchasing the software and not just a license to use it. See: But you, as an individual, agree to the EULA in order to use the software in accordance with that EULA. No I don't. I'm only clicking on a button that's necessary to get the program to install. There is no Microsoft representative in the room, I am not making a promise to any human entity. That button could say I agree that the sky is green with purple polka dots, but who would I be lying to by clicking on it? If you took that software to a country that has no laws, or to the Moon to use it, agreeing to the EULA would still bind an ethical person. You're still having a hard time comprehending that the entire world does not share your one particular ethical/moralistic framework. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|