Rules about copies of XP?

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:17:53 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:08:47 +1100, wrote:

There are plenty of guns in Australian. They MUST be tools not anti
human weapons.

As I'm not an NRA member, but I teach kids proper gun safety and
also teach shooting sports methods (long range rifle target
shooting) I would be interested to know what they consider "Tools"
and "Anti-Human" weapons. We've had a mass of gun laws that never
work, and it's really lame at times - like wanting to ban Assault
Style (looking) weapons, but they still let me purchase a rifle
with a .308 which has more penetration power than the so called
Assault Weapons. Mostly it people making laws out of fear and with
a complete lack of understanding, soon, if they get their way, only
the criminals will have guns.

So, what do the Oz consider "anti-human" weapons?

Gun laws don't work, but violent crimes in the US has been going down
since they have been implemented.

And violent crimes have been decreasing at higher rates in areas that
permit concealed carry too.

Cite!

The crime rates in areas where it's always
been legal to carry weapons is normally lower than the average.

Mostly because that would be in rural areas, where people have less
contact with other people.

It's
not the weapon or the type of weapon that you can legislate, as has
been proven by the fact that crazy people will use anything they can
get.

Cite!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:27:28 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Prove it isn't a fact. Show us the legal precendent.

I have a right to my interpretation

Your only fact in this entire BS is statement you just made: "I have
a right to my interpretation".

The vendors license stands until you prove otherwise.

That is not how contract law works. If I break a contract term, it is
up to the licensor to sue me and convince a judge that I broke the
term,
but in my defense I can raise the unconscionability of the term as the
reason for breaking it.

SCO is suing IBM for violating the UNIX licensing agreement. Has IBM
violated it before a court rules it has, just because SCO claims IBM
has? If so, why have a trial at all?

IBM didn't have to sue SCO and prove that they had a right to do what
they did, and neither do I!

Dude, have you not figured out yet that I know both contract law, and
copyright law a hell of a lot better than you do? I give practical
analogies, links, quote other people from universities to the supreme
court, and all you do is refute it with the MicroNonsense of MS's EULA.

Come on, lameboy. Let's see you put up like I do, instead of the FUD
of
what might happen in the future, and the MS's word is the law BS.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

hmmm , i guess as long as you feel free and safe . i collect , shoot
recreationally , teach handgun safety to people wanting to be licenced to
carry and never leave home without one in my pocket . one of the first
things hitler did was require all firearm owners to register their guns .
then he confiscated them .

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:05:13 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:17:53 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:08:47 +1100, wrote:

There are plenty of guns in Australian. They MUST be tools not
anti human weapons.

As I'm not an NRA member, but I teach kids proper gun safety and
also teach shooting sports methods (long range rifle target
shooting) I would be interested to know what they consider "Tools"
and "Anti-Human" weapons. We've had a mass of gun laws that never
work, and it's really lame at times - like wanting to ban Assault
Style (looking) weapons, but they still let me purchase a rifle
with a .308 which has more penetration power than the so called
Assault Weapons. Mostly it people making laws out of fear and with
a complete lack of understanding, soon, if they get their way,
only the criminals will have guns.

So, what do the Oz consider "anti-human" weapons?

Gun laws don't work, but violent crimes in the US has been going
down since they have been implemented.

And violent crimes have been decreasing at higher rates in areas
that permit concealed carry too.

Cite!

I think the proper response, as you've done to me is do your own
homework. If you contact the FBI or the local Sheriff in an area
where the CCW was implemented they will tell you that violent crime
has dropped at a higher rate since CCW was implemented.

In other words, you can't back up your words.



The crime rates in areas where it's always
been legal to carry weapons is normally lower than the average.

Mostly because that would be in rural areas, where people have less
contact with other people.

Dufus, CCS has been implemented in many cities, get a clue.

You were talking about areas "always been legal to carry weapons." Not
the new places that have been added recently.




It's
not the weapon or the type of weapon that you can legislate, as has
been proven by the fact that crazy people will use anything they can
get.

Cite!

I think the proper response, as you've done to me is do your own
homework. If you contact the FBI or the local Sheriff in an area
where the CCW was implemented they will tell you that violent crime
has dropped at a higher rate since CCW was implemented.

In other words, you can't back up your words. Typical!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

In message "David Candy" .
wrote:

We like our crazies with knifes rather than assault rifles.

Perhaps, but as long as the normals outnumber the crazies, I'd rather
the normals AND the crazies be armed, rather then just the crazies.


--
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:19:38 -0800, kurttrail wrote:

Dude, have you not figured out yet that I know both contract law, and
copyright law a hell of a lot better than you do? I give practical
analogies, links, quote other people from universities to the supreme
court, and all you do is refute it with the MicroNonsense of MS's
EULA.

Kurt, I agree that you can break the rules until MS takes you to
court, I never disputed that. What I disagree with is that you are
telling people, in most cases, they it's legal to install in
violation of the license as provided.

I don't say that to anyone. Show where I said that to anyone but you.
And even to you, I said my interpretation is legally valid until proven
otherwise. And for the last more than dozen years, MS has yet to
challenge my "fair use" interpretation. The likelihood of them ever
doing is so miniscule after all this time, that I stand a better chance
of winning $500,000,000 in the lottery.

There is a difference between
telling people that they can do what they want as long as they
understand that it's not been challenged in court and could be
considered illegal and in telling them that they can do anything they
want.

They can do whatever they want in the privacy of their home for
non-commercial purposes with the copyrighted material that they have
legal access to. Until either Congress rewrites copyright law, or a
court rules otherwise. That's how Copyright Law works.

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" means
when it comes to individuals.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

They didn't just limit individual "fair use" to that of a specific type
of copyrighted material in that case, but they left the definition broad
because individuals have to "fair use" of any type of copyrighted
material they have access to. It was one of the main rationales why
that the video recorder wasn't an infringement, because its main use
wasn't an infringement, that of individuals reproducing and using those
copies of copyrighted material.

"Fair Use" as written in copyright law, is mainly the talking about the
Public and/or commercial "fair uses" of copyrighted material, so in the
Betamax case the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" is for us
individuals in the privacy of our own homes. No copyright owner has the
right to KNOW what we do in our homes with our copies of our copyrighted
material. They do not possess that exclusive right. Remember we are
supposedly a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. We are
not the gov't for the corporate copyright elite.

Later in the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court makes reference to
another Supreme Court decision of the meaning of copyright, and for who
it is that is suppose to benefit the most from it.

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

Being paid by an individual for a copyrighted work once, is a "fair
return," and being paid more than once for the same copyrighted material
by an individual is more than a "fair return" and isn't in the general
public good.

Now Bruce likes to bring up what is written at the Stanford U. site,
which is stating the public and/or commercial aspects of "fair use," but
one place where private non-commercial "fair use" and public and/or
commercial "fair use" are similar is when the copyright owner disagrees
with the interpretation of "fair use" being used.

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the
rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er9/index.html

So in a situation like copyrighted software, where a company like MS has
known that its copyrighted material has been "fairly used" for more than
a dozen years, and has yet to legally disagree with any definition of
"fair use" of their software in a court of law, after all this time it
is highly unlikely that MS would now challenge this in court, because:
1.) the length of time that they didn't challenge this would be held
against them, and, 2.) they don't possess the exclusive right to such
a use, and it would be highly unlikely that a court would rule in favor
of a corporation to have rights in someone's home to tell them how an
individual can use copyrighted material in the privacy of that home, and
that being in the general public good.

MS has always known that they really don't stand a snowballs chance in
hell of winning such a case, and that is the main reason for the
behavior modification aspects of PA. To win through marketing and
propaganda, what it knows it cannot win under the law and under existing
legal precedent. So MS, like any of us, has the right to sue for just
about anything, but that doesn't mean that they would win. If they
thought they could, then they would have done as the Music Industry has
done over file-sharing. And if you look at those suits closely, the
Music Industry is only going after those that make their music
collections available for upload to other, in other words, distributing
music to others, and the Music Industry hasn't gone after anyone that
has just downloaded music, because individuals have the right to "fairly
use" the copyrighted material that is available to them for their own
private use, but not the right to redistribute it to others.

This is how copyright and "fair use" works today. One day the corporate
copyright lobby may get Congress to change Copyright Law and remove some
of the limitations placed on Copyright Owners under Copyright Law, but
until then, we, as private non-commercial individuals have the right to
"fairly use" the copyrighted material we have access to. No copyright
owner possess the right to say otherwise. That is a fact jack, until
proven otherwise, or Copyright Law is rewritten by Congress, not by a
corporate copyright owner in a post-sale shrink-wrap license.

My interpretation is legally valid as long as MS doesn't sue me and win.
That is a fact, Lameboy.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:23:05 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

I think the proper response, as you've done to me is do your own
homework. If you contact the FBI or the local Sheriff in an area
where the CCW was implemented they will tell you that violent crime
has dropped at a higher rate since CCW was implemented.

In other words, you can't back up your words. Typical!

A few months ago, and even a couple years ago, I could have provided
links to this sites in seconds, but as I've switched many things to
Linux and I don't make a point to follow those topics daily, I've not
migrated all my old bookmarks and articles to this machine. Which
means I don't have direct access to the articles to quote them to
you, which means, like the BS you spread about licensing, your are
interpreting as you see fit.

I didn't ask you to believe it, I just stated what I've seen in the
files, from local law enforcement people, and from stats on
government sites. You have as much access to them as I do - so do
your own homework.

An excuse that you are too lazy to back up your words! I love it!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Sydney and San Francisco are often considered sister cities (both =
harbour cities, both gay friendly, and a lot of immigration both ways in =
the 1800s). We have ethnic gangs etc. But most weapon crimes are with =
knifes (I was held up once in 78 with a knife - the railway police rang =
me and said he'll be gone when we get there after I hit the hold up =
button - he got no money so they didn't care but another time at work =
the local police came in 2 minutes after I rang them - knew the button =
was a waste of time).

Because guns were quite legal till Port Arthur =
(http://66.102.7.104/search?q=3Dcache....edu.au/tasfa=
q/history/portarthur.html+Port+Arthur+Massacre+&hl=3Den) there are many =
guns still in houses. But there are steep gaol sentances. And shooting =
at a copper is a bad idea if you want to be free again.

If you get murdered in an australian city it will be a bashing or =
knifing. And both are fairly unlikely. If you are shot it will be a =
family member that does it.



--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
"Leythos" wrote in message =
news
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:58:15 +1100, wrote:

[snipped - it was very interesting, didn't know some of that]

The point being only the police and some security guards can carry =
guns
to be used against people. Even a can of hair spray, if it's purpose =
is
anti human - and that includes self defense, is a crime to carry.
=20
But as the saying goes "shotties are best for crowd control".
=20
So, with only criminals being able to have guns in an uncontrolled =
manner,
do you have gun crimes? I've not looked at how Oz compares to the US, =
but
I would have to find two cities that appear similar and I don't know =
the
makeup of Sidney.
=20
--=20

remove 999 in order to email me

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Tom wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:11:17 -0500, Tom wrote:


"Leythos" wrote in message
news On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:50:11 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Because I make too much sense to just ignore me.

So did many others that lead people down the wrong path.

You sound like Microsoft Jesus!

And you sound like Kurt

I would have combined it into one word, and I wouldn't compare you
to Jesus. He was a cool dude.

Well, I don't know if he was cool, unless you believe (all good) in
what was written about him. To me, he was no more than a
revolutionary changing up the belief systems of Judaism back then,
which then resulted in an offshoot of Judaism (which was greatly
influenced by Zoroastrianism). If all the words attributed to him
are true, of which some of those words are cruel, I wouldn't say he
was all that cool.

Most of the cruel words in the New Testament are the authors
especially Saul of Tarsus, not his.

Not to let this go to much further: but weren't all the words of Jesus
written by authors, and not Jesus himself.

He spoke them they wrote it down afterwards.

There are words Jesus
(supposedly) said (as quoted in the gospels of Luke and Matthew) that
are fairly brutal. But overall, his words and thoughts of people for
people in general are very kind.

Yeah, just like with the words of the Buddha, it was preverted by his
followers. But both of their messages shine through the perversion of
those that came after them.

But, what were his real words, since the only ones written of him, were by
others, and not him? Since those are the only words that are mentioned, we
can only use the interpretation of what he supposedly said from the words of
others. I guess, only Jesus really knows :-)

snipped

Gandhi was one of my heros!

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:47:42 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

My interpretation is legally valid as long as MS doesn't sue me and
win. That is a fact, Lameboy.

Your interpretation is a legal opinion, nothing more.

My interpretation is legally valid until otherwise challenged in court
and the challenger wins. That is a FACT.

And you cannot prove otherwise. All you can say is a variation of no it
isn't! That is the third time you didn't dispute one thing I said.

I explain myself in minute detail, with quotes and links, and all you is
give is a nonsense one sentence reply to it. If anyone is revealing
himself as a troll, it is you, Lamo!

Your postings indicate you are a troll - nice.

ROFL! Like I care what YOU think, Lameboy. Wait a second, what am I
saying? You obviously cannot think at all! If you did, you would have
some sense of shame for how lame your replies to me really are!

Let's see another variation on the "no it isn't" reply!


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Tom wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Tom wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Tom wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:11:17 -0500, Tom wrote:


"Leythos" wrote in message
news On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:50:11 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Because I make too much sense to just ignore me.

So did many others that lead people down the wrong path.

You sound like Microsoft Jesus!

And you sound like Kurt

I would have combined it into one word, and I wouldn't compare
you to Jesus. He was a cool dude.

Well, I don't know if he was cool, unless you believe (all good)
in what was written about him. To me, he was no more than a
revolutionary changing up the belief systems of Judaism back then,
which then resulted in an offshoot of Judaism (which was greatly
influenced by Zoroastrianism). If all the words attributed to him
are true, of which some of those words are cruel, I wouldn't say
he was all that cool.

Most of the cruel words in the New Testament are the authors
especially Saul of Tarsus, not his.

Not to let this go to much further: but weren't all the words of
Jesus written by authors, and not Jesus himself.

He spoke them they wrote it down afterwards.

There are words Jesus
(supposedly) said (as quoted in the gospels of Luke and Matthew)
that are fairly brutal. But overall, his words and thoughts of
people for people in general are very kind.

Yeah, just like with the words of the Buddha, it was preverted by his
followers. But both of their messages shine through the perversion
of those that came after them.

But, what were his real words, since the only ones written of him,
were by others, and not him? Since those are the only words that are
mentioned, we can only use the interpretation of what he supposedly
said from the words of others. I guess, only Jesus really knows :-)


One reads studies, and makes that decision for themselves. If you take
a red-letter Bible, and extract all the words attributed to him, the you
can see his teachings as a whole, and distinguish what is consistent
with his main message, and that which is totally out of character.

snipped

Gandhi was one of my heros!

Mine too, along with Martin Luther King Jr. Another man with flaws.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:19:19 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

I explain myself in minute detail, with quotes and links

Any your explanations are only your opinion of what you think you've
read. Others read the same material and still don't agree, so it's
still just an opinion.

I use legal precedents to back up my interpretation of "fair use." And
it doesn't matter that you or anybody else disagrees with it. It is the
copyright owner that has to disagree with it, and get a court to agree
with them, before my interpretation of "fair use" is considered legally
invalid.

What don't you understand about that? That is not my opinion, it is a
FACT. It is the way Copyright Law works. And you have yet to show ONE
thing that disputes this fact. All you have is your lame reply that it
is just an opinion. Be a man, and prove it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

In ,
Semper respectfully replied ;-)
I agree totally with Jupiter and others
kurttrail is a troll of the worst kind and I have filtered him out
other people need to do the same.
Or stop responding to his comments
He seeks attention why give it to him?

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:31:50 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
wrote:

"kurttrail"

You as well as others that accuse Kurt of being a troll are just wrong, Kurt
is not a troll and does not fit any definition of the actions a troll is
defined by. Plus calling Kurt a troll is about the equiIivent of saying his
mother wears army boots, Would you be concerned if you called yourself a
troll? LOL
He is disruptive, annoying, thought provoking, opinionated, perverse, rude,
might have a beard, [denies he hates]but hates Bush, has a warped sense of
humor and in my unsubstantiated opinion is going through a midlife crisis or
a rare case of male menopause. But he is not a Troll.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm

I didn't know he had a beard. I don't like beards.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
"Michael Stevens" wrote in message =
...
In ,
Semper respectfully replied ;-)
I agree totally with Jupiter and others
kurttrail is a troll of the worst kind and I have filtered him out
other people need to do the same.
Or stop responding to his comments
He seeks attention why give it to him?

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:31:50 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
wrote:

"kurttrail"
=20
You as well as others that accuse Kurt of being a troll are just =
wrong, Kurt=20
is not a troll and does not fit any definition of the actions a troll =
is=20
defined by. Plus calling Kurt a troll is about the equiIivent of =
saying his=20
mother wears army boots, Would you be concerned if you called yourself =
a=20
troll? LOL
He is disruptive, annoying, thought provoking, opinionated, perverse, =
rude,=20
might have a beard, [denies he hates]but hates Bush, has a warped =
sense of=20
humor and in my unsubstantiated opinion is going through a midlife =
crisis or=20
a rare case of male menopause. But he is not a Troll.
--=20
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm
=20
=20

LOL
you have hit the nail on the head

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:59:28 +1100, "David Candy" . wrote:

I didn't know he had a beard. I don't like beards.