Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

No, I state that all who practice their belief and install one license on
multiple computers are stealing.

If they simply do not believe in it, but they still abide by the EULA,
that's fine.

Gregg



"caver1" wrote in message
. ..


Gregg Hill wrote:
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


At the same time because some are pirates does not give anyone the right
for others to brand all who disagree as pirates or liars. Maybe some are
following what rules are in place but are trying to change them at the
same time. Innocent until proven guilty. You try to state that all are
guilty that do not agree with you.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the EULA
and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are advocating
stealing.

Gregg Hill

Where is your example? When have I ever specifically said that it's OK
to "install ONE license on multiple computers"?




"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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


Post one example where I say "I advocate stealing."

"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.

Gregg Hill wrote:
No, I state that all who practice their belief and install one license on
multiple computers are stealing.

If they simply do not believe in it, but they still abide by the EULA,
that's fine.

Gregg

So where is your problem with me?




"caver1" wrote in message
. ..

Gregg Hill wrote:
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

At the same time because some are pirates does not give anyone the right
for others to brand all who disagree as pirates or liars. Maybe some are
following what rules are in place but are trying to change them at the
same time. Innocent until proven guilty. You try to state that all are
guilty that do not agree with you.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:27:36 +0000, caver1 wrote:



Nina DiBoy wrote:
arachnid wrote:
Thanks for the new sig!



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


LOL!

But to have a fair system there has to be balanced. So the above sig is
true but at the same time the manufacturer's right to be paid should not
outweigh the public's right to fair use. So being that both are true there
has to be a meeting point in the middle not a total wiping out of one
side.

"Fair use" itself was *supposed* to balance the monopoly that Copyright
law grants to the copyright holder with a minimal set of rights guaranteed
for the end-user. Unfortunately, the copyright holders have found ways to
negate fair use, including buying favorable laws such as the DMCA, and
using entire armies of lawyers to bully helpless consumers.

However, occasionally they DO misjudge the helplessness of a victim:

: Judge orders RIAA to justify its piracy charges
:
: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35669
:
: A US COURT is forcing the Recording Industry of America to explain why
: it charges people it catches pirating $750 a single rather than the 70
: cents they flog them to retailers for.
:
: In the case UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has allowed Ms Lindor, who the
: RIAA claim is a pirate, to challenge the $750 a track it wants in
: damages.

This one case could put an end to the BSA/RIAA/MPAA bullying.

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

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:33:54 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the
EULA and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are
advocating stealing.

So you keep saying, but then when someone refutes your arguments you
run away without even trying to defend yourself. These are not the
actions of someone who believes what they say.

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

Alias,

I don't know who Mr. Haggard is, nor is his experience relevant to this
thread. I am not hiding anything. I never said that I have never broken a
law. I never claimed to be perfect or without sin. For the sake of this
thread, one could be a raping, bank-robbing, child-molesting ax murderer who
steals from old ladies, but the **points about theft would remain the
same.** I am just stating that anyone who uses the single license they
purchased to install XP on more than one computer is stealing. In order to
understand that, one must understand that the license is for installation on
one computer, per the manufacturer, who has every right to claim that fact.
Your local laws, or lack thereof, or your "fair use" laws (which are NOT, by
definition, fair to the manufacturer), do not change that fact.

Let me ask you about this scenario. Let's say that you live in a country
that has NO laws of any kind, perhaps your own island in the Pacific (hey,
one can dream!). Let's say that a Dell computer costs $1000 without any
software on it. If you ordered four of them from Dell and they were shipped
to your island, would you expect to pay Dell for each one, for a total of
$4000, or would you say you cannot afford it and you think it is unfair for
them to charge so much, so you are only going to pay for one of them, but
you will use all four, and my country allows me to do that? Likely, you
would agree that you should pay for all four. Four products, four payments
is the only "fair use" of the products, regardless of the profit margin Dell
has on each one. If you can only afford one or two, buy one or two. When you
can afford the other two, buy the other two.

Why is it that you and the others can somehow rationalize that since it is a
software license and is intangible, it is somehow OK that you do not pay for
a license for each one of those products in use on each of the pieces of
hardware you just bought? Most people's work is not quantifiable in tangible
product, but they expect to be paid nonetheless.

Is it because your hatred of Microsoft and Billy's billions of dollars has
somehow clouded the fact that whether it is hardware, software, or labor, it
is still an item deserving of compensation?

Is it because you CAN use one license to install on many computers without
being caught, that it somehow justifies it?

Heck, I think it is nauseating to have to pay $5000 for a powerful server,
but I do not expect Dell to ship me four for that price. One product
purchased, one payment. Four products used, four payments. Why is that such
a difficult concept to grasp?

If you are an employee and you work an eight hour day, does your employer
pay you for all eight, or just the first hour each day? I certainly hope the
employer pays for all eight, even if your work is not something that can be
physically measured. Most employers would think it fair to only pay you for
half those hours, because they know you are not working every single minute
you are at the job. Do you punch off the clock when you take a cigarette
break or a pee break? Do you stop the clock when you surf the Internet at
work? Do you stop the clock when there is no work for you to do for two
hours? I doubt it.

What possible justification can you have to think that Microsoft, in spite
of its billions of dollars, does not deserve to be paid for each of its
products in use, just as you expect to be paid for each of yours (your
time)?

I had a fellow consultant tell me, in response to my comment about him
giving multiple Office 2000 installations to his clients for free, "I have
paid Microsoft PLENTY of money over the last ten years, and they don't need
any more from me." I then asked him if he would continue to support his
clients if they said, "I have paid Joe PLENTY of money over the last ten
years, and he doesn't need any more." He said, "Of course not!" I asked what
is the difference, and he admitted that there was no difference. P.S. This
guy grosses over $15,000/month!

When the table is turned and it is YOU who does not get paid for each piece
of your work, whether that be a tangible item, or software you wrote, or
just your time entering data at a desk job, it becomes more apparent that
there absolutely is a financial impact, regardless of whether it is $100
from you or 1 billion dollars from Bill. If your employer paid you for one
hour each day that you worked eight hours, that would have the same effect
(as a percentage) on YOUR bank account as the ONE XP license installed on
eight computers has on Microsoft's bank account. You would both be getting
paid for 12.5% of your "product" (Bill's XP, your time). Just because ol'
Bill's bank account is a wee bit larger than yours or mine does not justify
taking his money by not paying for each product in use.

I would love to keep going with this thread, but I have spent hours typing
and it is obvious that no amount of reasoning will get you to see that by
not paying, you are taking money form Microsoft or anyone else. By not
paying for each installation, you have a financial gain, over-ruling the
"casual copying" you mentioned. I have three months of billing to catch up
on, so I have to bow out at this point.

You may enjoy having your way with my comments.

Gregg Hill




"Alias" wrote in message
...
caver1 wrote:


Gregg Hill wrote:
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


At the same time because some are pirates does not give anyone the right
for others to brand all who disagree as pirates or liars. Maybe some are
following what rules are in place but are trying to change them at the
same time. Innocent until proven guilty. You try to state that all are
guilty that do not agree with you.

There was a pastor by the name of Ted Haggard who preached the same things
as our dear friend Gregg Hill. You saw what happened to him. What are you
hiding, Gregg?

Alias

I agree with you. But what is a "total wiping out" of one side?

I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.

Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.

Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.

We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill





"caver1" wrote in message
.. .


Nina DiBoy wrote:
arachnid wrote:
Thanks for the new sig!



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


LOL!

But to have a fair system there has to be balanced. So the above sig is
true but at the same time the manufacturer's right to be paid should not
outweigh the public's right to fair use. So being that both are true there
has to be a meeting point in the middle not a total wiping out of one
side.

Nina,

My problem with you started where you said, "What is wrong with installing
*licensed* software on more than one machine?" in your first post.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I took it to mean, in light of
the entire thread, that you meant, "What is wrong with installing ONE
*licensed* software product on more than one machine?" which is what this
thread is all about.

If that is not what you meant, then you have my sincere apologies for my
mistaken assumption.

Gregg Hill





"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
No, I state that all who practice their belief and install one license on
multiple computers are stealing.

If they simply do not believe in it, but they still abide by the EULA,
that's fine.

Gregg

So where is your problem with me?




"caver1" wrote in message
. ..

Gregg Hill wrote:
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

At the same time because some are pirates does not give anyone the right
for others to brand all who disagree as pirates or liars. Maybe some are
following what rules are in place but are trying to change them at the
same time. Innocent until proven guilty. You try to state that all are
guilty that do not agree with you.

Gregg Hill wrote:

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

THAT is funny!

Alias

If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?

Gregg Hill



"caver1" wrote in message
.. .


Gregg Hill wrote:
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






Someone is caught stealing tv's the company that they stole them from can
have them arrested and tried in court. If found guilty then they can be
fined, put in jail or both. But the company cannot accuse everyone who
comes in their store of being a thief or enforcing the law against those
who are. Only public law enforcement and the courts can do that.

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

This is correct. MS proves that with all of their IP theft.



But that in no way justifies doing back to them. Two wrongs do not make a
right.





"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

Who says I've done that?


I said "someone" does that. I did not say that YOU do that.



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.

What is it called when one purchases an OS, installs it, then one of the
many peices of buggy DRM breaks and locks that person out of the OS?


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

Noone is going to look out for me except me. Having the care to stand up
for my fair use rights is not unethical.


Why is it "fair" for you or anyone else not to pay for each installation of
a product used, if you do in fact do use one license on more than one
computer?







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.


If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.


I laughed out loud, thank you!



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.


This is not a discussion on ethics. This is a discussion on the EULA


Oh, but it absolutely IS a discussion of ethics. You yourself claimed that
the EULA is unconscionable. All the anti-MS folks have said there is nothing
wrong with installing one license on multiple computers. Paying for one
product license and usin git multiple times is a matter of ethics, or more
correctly, a lack thereof.


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.



So how does that make me a liar?


If you do it, it does, if you don't it does not. I thought you did. Sorry.








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

snip

Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.



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


Why should a company that is guilty of anti-trust violations and IP theft
tell me what I am and am not allowed to do in the privacy of my own home?





"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.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.

Everyone knows that, Gregg. We know all about the slight of hand that MS
uses to milk their customers for all they're worth. You don't get
obscenely rich by being a honest nice guy.

Like Nina, I too have one XP license per computer in two different
languages. This doesn't mean I like they idea. It only means that, like
you, we don't steal.

Alias



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

Why should a company that is guilty of anti-trust violations and IP theft
tell me what I am and am not allowed to do in the privacy of my own home?




"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.

"Alias" wrote in message
...
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.


The financial effect on the manufacturer is the same. If you pay for one and
use four, it has the same financial impact on their bank account and yours.
They are out the price for three units, and you have gained the price of
three units by not having that amount taken from your account. You have
gained financially, negating your "fair use" claim.





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?


Does the money in your bank account "exist" because a little magnetized
piece of material has created a positive charge on a piece of storage media
in the bank's computer somewhere? Your money in your bank account does not
"exist" any more than that license, but I'll bet you don't want the bank
saying you have no money!



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?


See the bank account example above.




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?


Again, it does not have to be governed by law to be wrong.







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?


Judges in Afghanistan during Taliban rule did not think raping women and
beating them to death was wrong. So, in your logic, that makes that behavior
right. Bad argument on your part.

Law, or lack thereof, does not mean it is not right.




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.


See the comment about Afghanistan.






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.


Yes, they got money for the first license you used, but not for any other
that you SHOULD have bought.



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

"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your
home. They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e.,
the purpose for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling
you *how many times* that you have bought a license to install it.

Everyone knows that, Gregg. We know all about the slight of hand that MS
uses to milk their customers for all they're worth. You don't get
obscenely rich by being a honest nice guy.


There is no sleight of hand. You (meaning a user of XP) can fully understand
the EULA but may or may not choose to ignore it, regardless of local law. My
problem is with those who choose to buy one and install many, or in the case
of what started this thread, not even buying one, but using leaked volume
license keys.

Whether Bill has 100 billion in the bank or three dollars, it does not
change the fact that each product should be paid for before one uses it. Buy
one, install one, plain and simple. Can't afford it, use Linux.


Like Nina, I too have one XP license per computer in two different
languages. This doesn't mean I like they idea. It only means that, like
you, we don't steal.



So you and Nina do not personally steal, but you have been saying all along
that there is nothing wrong with buying one and installing many.




Alias



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

Why should a company that is guilty of anti-trust violations and IP
theft tell me what I am and am not allowed to do in the privacy of my
own home?




"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.