Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

Nina,

Aren't you tired yet arguing about a topic that is always contentious no
matter who you are talking to. This thread will go on and on unless
somebody decides that enough is enough!!

On the one hand you will get MVPs and uncle bill's supporters (who agree
with each other on every count), and on the other hand you get people
who think it is their right to use any software they like without paying
for it. Both parties are right depending on in which country they are
based. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it is time to move on
from this topic.

My two cent worth!!



Nina DiBoy wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:57:09 -0700, Bruce Chambers wrote:

So, "two wrongs make a right?" That's got to be about the worst excuse
for dishonesty in the world.

It's not a question of making a "right" or a "wrong" out of anything. It's
simply a matter of the other party having changed the rules by which the
two of you behave: "If they play by ruleset X then I'll play by ruleset X.
If they change to ruleset Y, then I'll change to ruleset Y so we're both
playing by the same rules".

ANONYMOUS wrote:
Nina,

Aren't you tired yet arguing about a topic that is always contentious no
matter who you are talking to. This thread will go on and on unless
somebody decides that enough is enough!!

On the one hand you will get MVPs and uncle bill's supporters (who agree
with each other on every count), and on the other hand you get people
who think it is their right to use any software they like without paying
for it. Both parties are right depending on in which country they are
based. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it is time to move on
from this topic.

My two cent worth!!

That's fair anonymous. I respect your opinion. I do reject the
assumption that I am one of those people who "think it is their right to
use any software they like without paying for it" though. Let it be on
record that I have paid for every windows OS I have installed on a
computer in my own home. I am simply trying to express my opinion that
the MS EULA for Windows is unconscionable.

And no, I don't really get tired to having productive conversation about
this.


Nina DiBoy 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. 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.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
:

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote:


Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the
license and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between
that party and MS. It is not a crime.


All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are
also demonstrating a lack of integrity.



The logical course of action is for MS to take the individual to court
in order to enforce their license. But MS doesn't.


This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft
to actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead,
they only go after the "big fish."

Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the
fact that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it
should not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.



They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. 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.



So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

"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."

Trust me, the folks on the other side of the fence (the pirates) forgot that
fact a long time ago. NO amount of reasoning has yet to convince them
otherwise.

An ethical person understands it readily and abides by his or word (agreeing
to the EULA). They do not. My Dad used to tell me that a man is only as good
as his word, and now I understand that more than ever.

Gregg Hill




"Michael D. Alligood" wrote in message
...
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. 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.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
:

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote:


Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the
license and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between
that party and MS. It is not a crime.


All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It
doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack
of
integrity.

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are
also demonstrating a lack of integrity.



The logical course of action is for MS to take the individual to court
in order to enforce their license. But MS doesn't.


This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for
Microsoft
to actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead,
they only go after the "big fish."

Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the
fact that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it
should not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.



They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. 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.



So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine

Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand
lawyers... (

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



"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.

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.

It does not have to be a crime to be stealing, or in your words, taking
"...something that belongs to someone else." 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. Any installations beyond that ONE are taking from
Microsoft.

Taking what from MS?

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.

It's not technically a contract dispute until MS takes one to courrt over
it.

So, again, you are taking something that does not belong to you. 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. 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." Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is
flawed. 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.

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

Snip

No, I advocate that the EULA from MS for windows is unconscionable. No
shady company like MS has the right to infringe on my fair use rights or
to tell me how to use something I own in the privacy of my own home.

"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. Either you are an ethical person and you honor
your agreement, are you are unethical and you do not honor it, and you in
effect steal the license for the additional computers onto which you install
XP.

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.

Gregg





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine

Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand
lawyers... (

"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.





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?







It does not have to be a crime to be stealing, or in your words, taking
"...something that belongs to someone else." 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. Any installations beyond that ONE are taking from
Microsoft.

Taking what from MS?






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.

It's not technically a contract dispute until MS takes one to courrt over
it.


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.



So, again, you are taking something that does not belong to you. 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. 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." Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is
flawed. 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.

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

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.





No shady company like MS has the right to infringe on my fair use rights
or to tell me how to use something I own in the privacy of my own home.

Actually, they have every right. They developed the software. If you feel
they have no right, you should not use the product. Why do your "fair use
rights" overrule those of the people who put in the time to write the
product? Because you are unethical.

Gregg

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".

First of all, I do not and will never adopt the EULA as a law or a
prescribed "law".

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.

Actions speak louder than words. All this buggy DRM that MS employs in
their software is the action they are taking to show that they treat
their paying customers like pirates. They do this instead of standing
up for their EULA and taking the pirates to court.

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. 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.

Which is an unconscionable license put out by a corporation which has
been sued (and lost) for alot more crap than I personally have been.


--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
:
snip

Use something different then. Suggestions include but are not limited to
Apple, UNIX, Linux, and whatever else you can stea... (borr... I mean
own.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor



"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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine

Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand
lawyers... (

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. 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.

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.


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.


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.

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?

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.

And somehow that makes stealing from them OK. Right.

Gregg



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
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".

First of all, I do not and will never adopt the EULA as a law or a
prescribed "law".

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.

Actions speak louder than words. All this buggy DRM that MS employs in
their software is the action they are taking to show that they treat their
paying customers like pirates. They do this instead of standing up for
their EULA and taking the pirates to court.

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.
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.

Which is an unconscionable license put out by a corporation which has been
sued (and lost) for alot more crap than I personally have been.


--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor



"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
:
snip

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.