Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

Gregg



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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.


But you MUST agree to the EULA to install and use the software. So
apperently, you are lying when you click to agree to it. Gee, you sure sound
ethical to me!






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.



At that point you would become a thief and an unethical person.

"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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.



It does not have to be a physical item to be stolen. If I hack into your
bank account and transfer the balance to mine, I think you would be
outraged, in spite of the fact that no physical item was taken from you.




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.


Theft is theft. If you use something without the right to do so and against
the agreement which you acknowledged, it is an accurate comparison.



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.


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






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?


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


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.

But you stated you would, and at that time you would be an unethical thief.

And by clicking on the button, you are agreeing to the EULA. Read it again.

Once again, there need not be someone watching you do something wrong for it
still to be wrong.

I am quite well aware that the world is unethical in many ways. I am merely
pointing out that YOU are part of that world.

Gregg

"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.12.00.34.39.666850@goawayspammers .com...
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.

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


True if you don't agree with something that doesn't give you the right
to break a law to get around it, But it doesn't stop you from trying to
change it. On the same hand big business (especially American) has
gotten so greedy that they try and most of the time succeed in changing
the rules to their favor and bind up the consumer to where they have no
real choices. Case in point is the copy write and patent laws. They have
been stretched so far to big business's favor that the consumer has
fewer and fewer rights. The RIAA and large software companies amongst
others have gotten the laws leaning so far in their favor that they can
be some of the richest companies around an say they are going broke
because fair use rules are not right. Innovation is hindered by to tight
of copy write\patent rules. Notice I said to tight. Even Franklin,
Jefferson, Washington etc. did not believe these laws should be anywhere
near as tight as they are today.
That is why I am moving away from MS until they change. To get off the
M$ wagon.

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


That may be true but US courts have stated that EULAs cannot abridge
first sale doctrine of fair use laws.

Nina DiBoy wrote:


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


I don't. It's just that your rationalisations, poor as they are, have
absolutely *nothing* to do with either fair use, as defined by law, or
your civil rights. Why not just admit that you have no ethics, and be
done with it?


--

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

arachnid wrote:

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... (




Surely you don't seriously think Wikipedia is a valid reference for
anything, do you? Anyone can edit any article however they want;
there's no assurance anything there is correct or accurate.


--

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 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.


I think we are on the same line of thinking except you and MS want to
bundle all who want their fair use rights protected with pirates. Yes
pirates should be prosecuted.

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


So the same point is it is wrong to steal the publics right to fair use
for reasons of greed. I sure hope my Dr. doesn't decide that I have to
die to stop my cold from being used by terrorists. Or am I now a
terrorist because I gave my cold to someone else?

Gregg Hill wrote:
And somehow that makes stealing from them OK. Right.

Gregg

snip

Well, I don't agree with stealing, but you are welcome to your opinion.

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
big business (especially American) has
gotten so greedy that they try and most of the time succeed in changing
the rules to their favor and bind up the consumer to where they have no
real choices.

LOL, look at any business founded in China, Taiwan India, Russia, well,
just about any country, they are all the same when it comes to greed,
and every one of them is out to screw the customer out of as much as
they can get.


I don't dispute that but some US companies take it much further. What
other countries with the backing of their business try to control other
countries as much as US for the good of their economy?

Gregg Hill wrote:
snip

I do not in principle agree with the EULA. I never have.

But you MUST agree to the EULA to install and use the software. So
apperently, you are lying when you click to agree to it. Gee, you sure sound
ethical to me!

Now I'm a liar?!? You invalidate your side of the discussion when you
engage in ad-hominem attacks like this.


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.

At that point you would become a thief and an unethical person.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
arachnid wrote:

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... (




Surely you don't seriously think Wikipedia is a valid reference for
anything, do you? Anyone can edit any article however they want;
there's no assurance anything there is correct or accurate.


Go to the court cases ,Such as MS and AT&T, that are going on right now
and see for yourself. Take a look at how they defend themselves.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:52:26 -0700, Bruce Chambers wrote:

arachnid wrote:

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... (




Surely you don't seriously think Wikipedia is a valid reference for
anything, do you? Anyone can edit any article however they want; there's
no assurance anything there is correct or accurate.

Anyone can correct it, too. And did you see that study where it was
compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica for accuracy?

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Note also that Wikipedia will be included as a learning aid in the OLPC.

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
snip

It does not have to be a physical item to be stolen. If I hack into your
bank account and transfer the balance to mine, I think you would be
outraged, in spite of the fact that no physical item was taken from you.


Again, comparing apples to oranges. Stealing money is against the law.
A contract dispute is not against the law.

snip
Theft is theft. If you use something without the right to do so and against
the agreement which you acknowledged, it is an accurate comparison.

I "acknowledged" the EULA, but did not agree to it. I wish MS would
acknowledge fair use rights and not infringe on them.

snip

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


But it's still not a realistic comparison.

snip


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


I have not once resorted to calling you names or insulting you. Who's
the ethical one now?

snip