Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

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.


Not this one:

http://www.allofmp3.com/

And they are based in Russia.

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

Gregg

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

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:55:53 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

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

No I'm not. Someone else says that by clicking on the button I'm agreeing
to the EULA. That doesn't make it so. They can say that by clicking the
button I'm agreeing that the sky is green with purple polka dots. That
doesn't make me a liar if I click the button, because I haven't lied to
anyone - there is nobody in the room to lie *to*. Neither have I agreed to
anyone. All I've done is click a virtual button on a computer screen.

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

Abstract thought just isn't your forte?

Bruce Chambers wrote:
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?



So it has nothing to do with fair use rights that any of this DRM crap
in the software could screw up and keep me from using software that I
have every right to use because I paid for it with my own money?!? It
doesn't infringe on my fair use rights that I have to make a paid tech
support call to MS support in order to figure out the problem and get it
fixed. It doesn't infringe on my fair use rights that the foreign
person at the other end of the line has such a thick accent that I can
hardly understand what they are saying while trying to get help? It
doesn't infringe on my fair use rights that I don't even get to see the
EULA before I spend all that money on the product because of the
post-shrink wrapped license scheme MS has going?

Right Bruce, right.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:08:34 -0600, Nina DiBoy wrote:

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.

LOL! He can't even tell you who you supposedly lied to. Microsoft? They
don't even know you exist, let alone that you read (or did not read)
the text and clicked that button, so how can you be lying to Microsoft?

This is in fact the basis upon which some countries invalidate shrinkwrap
agreements, and I believe it's also the basis upon which the UCC
conflicts with - and may override - the DMCA. To be binding, a contract
must be agreed upon between two or more parties and each party has to be
aware of all the other's agreement to the contract. In other words, if you
sign a contract in the privacy of your own home and the other party to the
contract isn't aware that you signed it, then the contract isn't legally
binding. Now substutite "Click 'I Agree'" for "sign a contract".

arachnid wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:08:34 -0600, Nina DiBoy wrote:

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.

LOL! He can't even tell you who you supposedly lied to. Microsoft? They
don't even know you exist, let alone that you read (or did not read)
the text and clicked that button, so how can you be lying to Microsoft?

This is in fact the basis upon which some countries invalidate shrinkwrap
agreements, and I believe it's also the basis upon which the UCC
conflicts with - and may override - the DMCA. To be binding, a contract
must be agreed upon between two or more parties and each party has to be
aware of all the other's agreement to the contract. In other words, if you
sign a contract in the privacy of your own home and the other party to the
contract isn't aware that you signed it, then the contract isn't legally
binding. Now substutite "Click 'I Agree'" for "sign a contract".





At the same time courts have called many of them nonbinding because they
are not legal even if both parties agreed to it in the first place. That
doesn't mean that either one is unethical or maybe only one but it is
still not a legal contract.

caver1 wrote:
arachnid wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:08:34 -0600, Nina DiBoy wrote:

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.

LOL! He can't even tell you who you supposedly lied to. Microsoft? They
don't even know you exist, let alone that you read (or did not read)
the text and clicked that button, so how can you be lying to Microsoft?

This is in fact the basis upon which some countries invalidate shrinkwrap
agreements, and I believe it's also the basis upon which the UCC
conflicts with - and may override - the DMCA. To be binding, a contract
must be agreed upon between two or more parties and each party has to be
aware of all the other's agreement to the contract. In other words, if
you
sign a contract in the privacy of your own home and the other party to
the
contract isn't aware that you signed it, then the contract isn't legally
binding. Now substutite "Click 'I Agree'" for "sign a contract".

At the same time courts have called many of them nonbinding because they
are not legal even if both parties agreed to it in the first place. That
doesn't mean that either one is unethical or maybe only one but it is
still not a legal contract.

Excellent points all, gentlemen! Too bad so many others wear the MS
blinders, like old horses being led to the slaughter.

When you advocate using the single license you purchased to install on
multiple computers, you have advocated stealing. You have been pushing that
attitude in your posts, screaming about your fair use rights.

Gregg



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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.

You said that you disagree with the EULA, but when you click on the little
button, you are agreeing to the EULA. That is why I said you were lying a
the time you clicked the button.

Gregg


"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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.

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

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

An unethical person keeps making excuses to steal.

Gregg






"caver1" wrote in message
. ..






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?

I am not aware of the lawsuit between the two.

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

Gregg





"caver1" wrote in message
news

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

Gregg

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

"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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.


My comment was in response to you stating, "Not an applicable comparison.
TVs are a physical item. A license is not a physical item." You
conveniently snipped that before you replied. My point was that it does not
have to be a physical item in order for it to be stolen.

"Stealing money is against the law." Duh, but what you fail to comprehaend
is that the effect on the manufacturer of someone buying one license and
installing it ten times is the same as if that person had walked into a bank
(or hacked in electronically) and taken money out of the manufacturer's bank
account in an amount equal to nine licenses. To the manufacturer, it is
stealing the money that they had a right to earn for developing the
software.

And to say it one more time, it does not have to be against the law in order
for it to be unethical.




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

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


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



snip

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


But it's still not a realistic comparison.


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





snip


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



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





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

snip

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.
With your "logic", blacks would still be slaves, marijuana use would
still be a felony and the USA would still be a colony of England.

Wrong, you just took what I said to the extreme without trying to
understand what I said.

Went over your head, eh?

As a thief, and you say you are, I expected nothing less from you.

Um, I don't say I am a thief. I have never stolen anything in my life.
Where did you get that from?

Alias

Gregg Hill wrote:
"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.

That's the EULA, not the law, saying that.




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.

No, I have used one license more than once that I paid for. There is no
"new" license.

It does not have to be a crime to be
stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone
else."

It has to exist doesn't it?

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.

Not the law but the EULA.

Any installations beyond that ONE are
taking from Microsoft.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?

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.

Which is not illegal or a crime where I live or don't you respect local
customs?

So, again, you are taking something that does not belong
to you.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?

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.

That's your subjective opinion, not one shared by the Spanish judges.
Are your opinions above the law?

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."

Not true.

Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.

Um, it's the *legal* interpretation.

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.

MS got its money for the CD I bought. They should expect any more than that.

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

You are really stretching it. This is commonly called "back pedaling".

Alias

Gregg Hill wrote:
When you advocate using the single license you purchased to install on
multiple computers, you have advocated stealing. You have been pushing that
attitude in your posts, screaming about your fair use rights.

Gregg

Um, that hasn't been established in a court of law and Microsoft is not
the Supreme Court of any country. Why hasn't Microsoft taken anyone to
court for that? Could it be that they are afraid that their "law" may be
struck down and that they will be forced to allow paying customers to do
what they want with things they buy in the privacy of their own home?

Alias