Pirated XP

"Linda B" wrote in
:

Dude, you completely missed my point. I don't argue that it's not
wrong, I'm just saying when people on these NGs call it "immoral"
or "unethical," they're stepping over a line. I know I'm arguing
semantics here, but to pretend like installing an illegal copy of
Windows XP is tantamount to murder or rape (or anything else that
actually *could* be argued is immoral) is just pure myopia.

If you want to argue that it's illegal, I ain't arguing. If you
want to argue that it's unethical, then I have a bone to pick.

OK, last I checked a copy of Windows XP Home cost $179.94.

You believe going into a store and stealing merchandise worth $180 is
ethical? You believe it's moral?

Your values are very different from mine....

"Linda B" wrote in message
...
| Alias, you are needlessly confrontational, but you have a good point --
| buying one copy of the OS and installing it on all five of my hypothetical
| computers at home is doing Microsoft no harm whatsoever.
|
| Wish I'd thought of that in my previous posts with Leythos...
|
| --LB
|
| ps - bait and switch? scam? melodrama, my friend... melodrama.

The license idea is a scam. You never really own what you buy. You buy a
right to use it under MS's conditions. If that isn't a scam and highway
robbery, I don't know what is. Next, you won't even be able to have the CD.
You will have a subscription to Word, Outlook, etc. that you can only use on
the web. Outlook is going for 59.95 a year and is being offered first to
Hotmail accounts. Have you got your "Passport, product key and licence" so
you can use your computer yet?

Yeah, bait and switch. Most people don't even know an EULA exists and assume
for some reason that when they buy something like a car, house, ring, watch
or software that it is theirs and they are free to use them as the see fit.
MS and Adobe are the prime offenders and others are getting into the scam.
This is not to say that all software makers are rip off artists. My daughter
has all the Tombraider games and none of them have an EULA and all of them
can be installed on as many computers I can own without activation or
agreeing to a rip off "license to use". Why doesn't Microsoft say Rent our
Software and, instead, they say, Buy our Software? Bait and switch?
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|
| "Alias" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Leythos" wrote in message
| ...
| | In article ,
| | says...
| | While I do agree that pirating software of any kind is not a good
| thing,
| and
| | obviously punishable by law, I hear entirely too much talk on these
| forums
| | of it being "immoral." Give me a break. It's software. If you
want
| to
| | fight for righteousness,
| |
| | I take it that you don't really work for a living, that you've never
| | sold a product that you owned or made yourself.
| |
| | Wait till you start spreading that BS thinner and applying it to other
| | things - software is a work, so is a car,
|
| More than one person can use the same car and you own it, not have a
| licence
| to use it.
|
| | so is a house,
|
| See above.
|
| | so is a watch
| | or a ring.
|
| See above, all are absurd comparisons. When we can really buy the
software
| and use it as we see fit, your comparisons are valid.
|
| | There is no real difference in stealing from a big company
| | than a little company.
| |
| | --
| | --
| |
|
| Really? How about BUYING the product and using it on all of one's
| computers.
| How is that stealing, using your examples above? Requiring licenses is
| stealing and a complete bait and switch, aka a SCAM.
| --
| Alias
|
| Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
| Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|
|
|
|

"Linda B" wrote in
:

Alias, you are needlessly confrontational, but you have a good
point -- buying one copy of the OS and installing it on all five
of my hypothetical computers at home is doing Microsoft no harm
whatsoever.

If you bought the required five copies, they'd sell four copies more.
How do you figure you've done them "no harm whatsoever"? You've stolen
an amount of money equal to the price of those four copies, if you can
justify that in your own mind fine but you'd still be a thief.

"XS11E" wrote in message
...
| "Linda B" wrote in
| :
|
| Dude, you completely missed my point. I don't argue that it's not
| wrong, I'm just saying when people on these NGs call it "immoral"
| or "unethical," they're stepping over a line. I know I'm arguing
| semantics here, but to pretend like installing an illegal copy of
| Windows XP is tantamount to murder or rape (or anything else that
| actually *could* be argued is immoral) is just pure myopia.
|
| If you want to argue that it's illegal, I ain't arguing. If you
| want to argue that it's unethical, then I have a bone to pick.
|
| OK, last I checked a copy of Windows XP Home cost $179.94.

What a rip off! Highway robbery! Stealing from a captive market!

| You believe going into a store and stealing merchandise worth $180 is
| ethical? You believe it's moral?

Bad comparison. We are talking about using software we BOUGHT and using it
AS WE SEE FIT.

| Your values are very different from mine....

Your logic is different than mine and I would appreciate it if you would
keep your xtian morality out of it, along with your high moral horse.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|

"XS11E" wrote in message
.. .
| "Linda B" wrote in
| :
|
| Alias, you are needlessly confrontational, but you have a good
| point -- buying one copy of the OS and installing it on all five
| of my hypothetical computers at home is doing Microsoft no harm
| whatsoever.
|
| If you bought the required five copies, they'd sell four copies more.
| How do you figure you've done them "no harm whatsoever"? You've stolen
| an amount of money equal to the price of those four copies, if you can
| justify that in your own mind fine but you'd still be a thief.

You are assuming that the licence scam is ethical. You're wrong. It's
unethical and, well, it's larceny, grand larceny at that. Before activation,
all the MS OS's could be copied at will and installed on any computer,
right? Did that make MS the poorest corporation in the world? Or are they
the OS monopoly of the world and filthy rich?
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

Again, I do not view this siutation as black or white. This is a common
problem today, where people tend to view any given situation as either right
or wrong, and lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the subtleties of a
gray area (example: George W. Bush, but that's a whole 'nother can of
worms). Yes, I agree that walking into a store and walking out with a piece
of software is stealing, but I also feel it's outrageous that, should I want
to install that same piece of software on five different computers, I am
required to pay $1000 for the luxury. That is also stealing, in my humble
opinion.

Another issue is that the software in question is "worth" $180, as you opine
below.

"XS11E" wrote in message
...
"Linda B" wrote in
:

Dude, you completely missed my point. I don't argue that it's not
wrong, I'm just saying when people on these NGs call it "immoral"
or "unethical," they're stepping over a line. I know I'm arguing
semantics here, but to pretend like installing an illegal copy of
Windows XP is tantamount to murder or rape (or anything else that
actually *could* be argued is immoral) is just pure myopia.

If you want to argue that it's illegal, I ain't arguing. If you
want to argue that it's unethical, then I have a bone to pick.

OK, last I checked a copy of Windows XP Home cost $179.94.

You believe going into a store and stealing merchandise worth $180 is
ethical? You believe it's moral?

Your values are very different from mine....

See my earlier posts if you require explanation. Or don't; I certainly
don't care.

"XS11E" wrote in message
.. .
"Linda B" wrote in
:

Alias, you are needlessly confrontational, but you have a good
point -- buying one copy of the OS and installing it on all five
of my hypothetical computers at home is doing Microsoft no harm
whatsoever.

If you bought the required five copies, they'd sell four copies more.
How do you figure you've done them "no harm whatsoever"? You've stolen
an amount of money equal to the price of those four copies, if you can
justify that in your own mind fine but you'd still be a thief.

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| says...
|
| "XS11E" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Linda B" wrote in
| | :
| |
| | Dude, you completely missed my point. I don't argue that it's not
| | wrong, I'm just saying when people on these NGs call it "immoral"
| | or "unethical," they're stepping over a line. I know I'm arguing
| | semantics here, but to pretend like installing an illegal copy of
| | Windows XP is tantamount to murder or rape (or anything else that
| | actually *could* be argued is immoral) is just pure myopia.
| |
| | If you want to argue that it's illegal, I ain't arguing. If you
| | want to argue that it's unethical, then I have a bone to pick.
| |
| | OK, last I checked a copy of Windows XP Home cost $179.94.
|
| What a rip off! Highway robbery! Stealing from a captive market!
|
| Actually, the OEM cost of XP Home is only $99 for about anyone. Linux is
| free if you take the time to download it.
|
| | You believe going into a store and stealing merchandise worth $180 is
| | ethical? You believe it's moral?
|
| Bad comparison. We are talking about using software we BOUGHT and using
it
| AS WE SEE FIT.
|
| Actually, you didn't buy the software, you bought a license to install
| and USE the software based on the agreement that you agreed to when you
| opened the seal on the package containing the CD.

My point and it's a scam. A high level one but a scam nonetheless and
highway robbery.
|
| | Your values are very different from mine....
|
| Your logic is different than mine and I would appreciate it if you would
| keep your xtian morality out of it, along with your high moral horse.
|
| If you don't feel guilty about your choice to be unethical and your
| choice to steal products from any vendor, then you should stop trying to
| defend you actions and just leave - you are mostly alone in your belief
| that stealing from anyone is justified.
|
| --
| --
|

I asked you not to give me a sermon and you, well, give me a sermon. Save it
for the pulpit and look at life, it's all around you, and most people do not
even know, much less think, that using something one bought as one sees fit
as something unethical. A lack of ethics was spawned when the concept of
buying a licence to use under the seller's conditions came into being. I
refuse to accept that using something I bought is stealing, YMMV (and
obviously does).
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| says...
| Yes, I agree that walking into a store and walking out with a piece
| of software is stealing, but I also feel it's outrageous that, should I
want
| to install that same piece of software on five different computers, I am
| required to pay $1000 for the luxury. That is also stealing, in my
humble
| opinion.
|
| So, it was OK when you walked into the store and "took" the computers or
| parts to make them, since the computer parts suppliers make a LOT of
| money and they forced you to use their computers?

How come you come up with these silly analogies? I'll tell you why, you're
back pedaling cause you can't really come up with one. The licencing idea
involves no portable property, the CD does. A car does A computer does. If I
buy a computer, ten people can take turns using it without a licence. You
can do anything you want to with it. You are not limited to anything other
than the physical limitations of the computer, not Gateway or IBM telling
you what you can or cannot do with your computer. Course, you can't copy a
computer which is another reason your analogy is absurd. Face it, MS is
stealing from their own clients with their scam and that's why many people
even feel proud about getting their own back.

Snip more absurd analogies and sermonizing.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| says...
| You are assuming that the licence scam is ethical. You're wrong. It's
| unethical and, well, it's larceny, grand larceny at that. Before
activation,
|
| Actually, it's completely ethical - if you want to use their software,
| and nothing is holding a gun to your head - you must agree to the terms
| of the license. Again, you don't have to use their software at all, and
| there are very viable alternatives for those that don't use it.

Not really without going through a learning curve ordeal with Linux,
although it is a growing movement. I wonder why.
|
| all the MS OS's could be copied at will and installed on any computer,
| right? Did that make MS the poorest corporation in the world? Or are
they
| the OS monopoly of the world and filthy rich?
|
| Again, they could NOT be copied and installed at will, just because they
| didn't have activation in early releases does not indicate that the
| software was free for use to anyone that could obtain a copy through any
| means. The one install of an OS has always been a restrictions, back
| even in the DOS days.

You mean MS didn't want them copied and so stated in their EULA. They could
be copied and any product key would work. Nonetheless, even with millions,
if not billions, of illegal copies being used, MS became filthy and
obscenely rich. How do you explain that?

|
| What does the richness of the producer have to do with the ethical
| decision to steal their product?

Nothing unless they steal to get rich through scams like the EULA's.

| MS is not a monopoly, ask any Linux, Unix, SCO, BSD user if they have to
| get permission from MS to run their software on their PC's / Servers.

Not a monopoly? Please, don't insult my intelligence. I have well visited
web sites and 99% of the people who visit use an MS OS. How many computers
are sold with Linux installed vs. MS? Pull the other one, chum, it has bells
on it.

| You're all wet, you don't have a valid argument for stealing products.
| --
|

Your opinion. We are going to have to agree to disagree it seems, what with
your being so over righteous and pure and moral and ethical in your defence
of one of the most profitable scams in the history of mankind since deficit
spending. It must be lonely to be so lily white and perfect.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| says...
| Alias, you are needlessly confrontational, but you have a good point --
| buying one copy of the OS and installing it on all five of my
hypothetical
| computers at home is doing Microsoft no harm whatsoever.
|
| Wrong, if it has benefit to you, then you determined that it was a
| useful product, and as it's also a licensed product that you are
| required to purchase in order to be properly licensed, you are harming
| the vendor - you are taking tangible substance from their pocket by your
| unlicensed use of their product.
|
| --
| --
|
| (Remove 999 to reply to me)

The "required to purchase" phrase is an interesting one. The licence, a non
portable property, is a scam, and a highly profitable one and one can
understand why the scammer wouldn't be happy with people who don't play the
game. Course, the licence or whatever you want to call it, has not been
successfully brought to court in the States and the country where I live in
has -- repeatedly -- disagreed with MS and you and has passed judgment, time
and time again, saying copying for personal use is -- get this -- NOT
STEALING and legal. Want urls for the judgments? In the end you're just
being a brown-nosing shill for the scammers, hiding behind false ethics and
righteous moral indignation.

--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| says...
| More than one person can use the same car and you own it, not have a
licence
| to use it.
|
| And nowhere in the owners manual does it say that it can only be used by
| one person. In fact, owning a car and driving it have nothing to do with
| a drivers license, although it's illegal (by law, not by car vendor) to
| drive without a drivers license.

Huh? Own. Licence to use. Car. XP. Going too fast for you? How about your
watch and ring example? Make more sense to you?
|
| You analogy does not fit, not even close.
|
| --
| --
|

No, you don't understand it.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

"Linda B" wrote in
:

See my earlier posts if you require explanation. Or don't; I
certainly don't care.

Why would I care that you're a thief?

I change jobs often I am in IT and like many other consultants to get a big
raise you have to keep switching jobs. Most consulting company’s will only
want/view resumes word format and if you save them in WordPad they do not
show up correctly because MS word is the standard viewer for them. If your
resume comes up all botched because it was done in a different program it
most likely will be over looked because of the difficulty to read it. I am
PRO MS but I can also admit they are intertwined in our world like cancer and
are a necessity for me and millions of others.

I say it is you that has a lower standard of ethics.
You allow a large company that has monopolized the industry continue to ask
whatever they want for a product because people like me cant submit a resume
without it (Just an example of many things that makes MS products a must have
to put a benze in my driveway). Just because you feel that because what you
are told to do is “right� IS the right thing to do, doesn’t mean you are
right or a more ethical person. You are a sheep and you like your world to be
black and white so you can wake up in the morning feeling like “Hey im sure a
great guy I don’t steal software� When in fact I feel that if I buy something
it is MINE and if my friend wants to use MY cd that I BOUGHT on his computer
SURE I BOUGHT IT. You are so scared to think outside of your comfortable box
it is scary and amusing at the same time. Let’s say I open up a car
dealership in a small town, nobody in this town owns a car and I am the only
dealership for miles. You buy a car from me and I say “Hey buddy you are not
aloud to drive other people around in the car you bought because if they use
your car then they get free rides and they may not buy a car of there own�


Lol and you would listen to him because you would be like “well oklie doklie
that was the agreement� Who are you Ned flanders?!

Like I said to me, It is people like you because of your rock throwing and
ideas of “ethics� that are actually allowing the bigger dogs to lower there
ethics. Wake up, Stop trying to argue and start realizing that whoa, you may
actually be wrong on this one.


This post applies to who it fits.

I change jobs often I am in IT and like many other consultants to get a big
raise you have to keep switching jobs. Most consulting company’s will only
want/view resumes word format and if you save them in WordPad they do not
show up correctly because MS word is the standard viewer for them. If your
resume comes up all botched because it was done in a different program it
most likely will be over looked because of the difficulty to read it. I am
PRO MS but I can also admit they are intertwined in our world like cancer and
are a necessity for me and millions of others.

I say it is you that has a lower standard of ethics.
You allow a large company that has monopolized the industry continue to ask
whatever they want for a product because people like me cant submit a resume
without it (Just an example of many things that makes MS products a must have
to put a benze in my driveway). Just because you feel that because what you
are told to do is “right� IS the right thing to do, doesn’t mean you are
right or a more ethical person. You are a sheep and you like your world to be
black and white so you can wake up in the morning feeling like “Hey im sure a
great guy I don’t steal software� When in fact I feel that if I buy something
it is MINE and if my friend wants to use MY cd that I BOUGHT on his computer
SURE I BOUGHT IT. You are so scared to think outside of your comfortable box
it is scary and amusing at the same time. Let’s say I open up a car
dealership in a small town, nobody in this town owns a car and I am the only
dealership for miles. You buy a car from me and I say “Hey buddy you are not
aloud to drive other people around in the car you bought because if they use
your car then they get free rides and they may not buy a car of there own�


Lol and you would listen to him because you would be like “well oklie doklie
that was the agreement� Who are you Ned flanders?!

Like I said to me, It is people like you because of your rock throwing and
ideas of “ethics� that are actually allowing the bigger dogs to lower there
ethics. Wake up, Stop trying to argue and start realizing that whoa, you may
actually be wrong on this one.


This post applies to who it fits.