Corporate XP and SP2

Shane wrote:

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...

Rock wrote:

I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes
and prosecuted as such.

Shane wrote:

Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how
politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars.
Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense
of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're
talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two.


Shane,

If I copy your identification, modify them in such a way so I pass as you
and start doing so - was anything stolen?


Doesn't sound like it. That would be an impersonation, wouldn't it? Not that
I'd be best pleased. But the point I would make is that it is for sober
debate to determine just what that is. Objectivity not subjectivity.

Shane


Yes it's theft, commonly called identify theft, one of the fastest
growing crimes nationally, particularly on the internet. A felony in
the state of california. You don't have to obtain anything of value by
doing so either, you just have to use it in some fashion.

It is called Identity theft, ever hear of it?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Shane" wrote in message
...
Doesn't sound like it. That would be an impersonation, wouldn't it?
Not that
I'd be best pleased. But the point I would make is that it is for
sober
debate to determine just what that is. Objectivity not subjectivity.

Shane

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

You say "Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full
price for it in any case."
I would say they would steal at any price because they are thieves and
stealing is in the nature of thieves.
Again you use an old excuse the thieves lamely use to justify their
wrong behaviour.

You example of the lottery ticket is not even close to relevant.
You do not own the lottery ticket but Microsoft owns Windows.
However people do sue and collect for being unduly delayed, but you
need to prove loss.
Again you have no loss so your example fall apart even as you make it.

You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you?
Using something without the owners permission is wrong.
If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call
you a thief.

"Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their
software."
Exactly what do you mean by that?
Does "somebody" copy them and then do nothing with them?
I guess you may be correct there since the person is really
demonstrating stupidity.



Microsoft has not yet taken it to court to try to prove loss that fair
use of Windows is illegal. This means they have not proven loss, as you
put it. Yet you call it stealing. Please explain you inconsistency
here Jupiter.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

You say "Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full
price for it in any case."
I would say they would steal at any price because they are thieves and
stealing is in the nature of thieves.
Again you use an old excuse the thieves lamely use to justify their
wrong behaviour.

You example of the lottery ticket is not even close to relevant.
You do not own the lottery ticket but Microsoft owns Windows.
However people do sue and collect for being unduly delayed, but you
need to prove loss.
Again you have no loss so your example fall apart even as you make it.

You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you?
Using something without the owners permission is wrong.
If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call
you a thief.

"Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their
software."
Exactly what do you mean by that?
Does "somebody" copy them and then do nothing with them?
I guess you may be correct there since the person is really
demonstrating stupidity.



Microsoft has not yet taken it to court to try to prove loss that fair
use of Windows is illegal. This means they have not proven loss, as you
put it. Yet you call it stealing. Please explain you inconsistency
here Jupiter.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

You say "Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full
price for it in any case."
I would say they would steal at any price because they are thieves and
stealing is in the nature of thieves.

"Steal at any price..." If someone is paying for something, how then
are they stealing it?

Again you use an old excuse the thieves lamely use to justify their
wrong behaviour.

You example of the lottery ticket is not even close to relevant.
You do not own the lottery ticket but Microsoft owns Windows.
However people do sue and collect for being unduly delayed, but you
need to prove loss.
Again you have no loss so your example fall apart even as you make it.

You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you?
Using something without the owners permission is wrong.
If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call
you a thief.

"Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their
software."
Exactly what do you mean by that?
Does "somebody" copy them and then do nothing with them?
I guess you may be correct there since the person is really
demonstrating stupidity.



Microsoft has not yet taken it to court to try to prove loss that fair
use of Windows is illegal. This means they have not proven loss, as you
put it. Yet you call it stealing. Please explain you inconsistencies
here Jupiter.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

But you have to also think about the poor guy packing the Windows at
factory, he is making a living from that.

When you simply just download it from peer-to-peer sites, you killing his
lively hood and the chain goes on.

Andre Da Costa
"hermes" wrote in message
...
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

You say "Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full
price for it in any case."
I would say they would steal at any price because they are thieves and
stealing is in the nature of thieves.
Again you use an old excuse the thieves lamely use to justify their
wrong behaviour.

You example of the lottery ticket is not even close to relevant.
You do not own the lottery ticket but Microsoft owns Windows.
However people do sue and collect for being unduly delayed, but you
need to prove loss.
Again you have no loss so your example fall apart even as you make it.

You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you?
Using something without the owners permission is wrong.
If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call
you a thief.

"Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their
software."
Exactly what do you mean by that?
Does "somebody" copy them and then do nothing with them?
I guess you may be correct there since the person is really
demonstrating stupidity.



Microsoft has not yet taken it to court to try to prove loss that fair
use of Windows is illegal. This means they have not proven loss, as you
put it. Yet you call it stealing. Please explain you inconsistency
here Jupiter.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

Have you taken something?
Yes, you've taken object code owned by Microsoft.

Did you take it from Microsoft without their permission?
Clearly.

Has Microsoft lost anything?
Yes, they have lost the ability to prevent you from using the software
unless you license it (note: License it, NOT buy it. Or, buy the
license, but NOT "buy the software", which is not, itself, sold).

If you don't understand that this is theft, you are either
rationalizing, or you don't understand or refuse to accept, the concept
of intellectual rather than physical property. However the law does
recognize this concept, fortunately, or there would be no Microsoft, and
not much software. Also, not much music or films.



Al Smith wrote:

In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are
not adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the
ability to use it."


The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost anything.
Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular reason to
suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS would have gone
out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not been available. This
might be the case, but it also might *not* be the case. And there is no
way to demonstrate that it is the case. Besides, theft is taking
something real that already exists, not potentially depriving someone of
possible, speculative, additional future earnings.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing happens
to the original edition. It does not cease to be. Microsoft does not
lose the money it made by selling the original edition. Copying is not
theft. It may involve an infringement of the Microsoft license
agreement, but that is not theft.

Now that is convoluted logic. Opinions about facts can be wrong. If I
have an "opinion" that Lincoln's picture is on a US $1 bill, I am wrong.
Opinions about whether Bush or Kerry would make a better president are
one thing, but when someone claims that their wrong idea about a fact
can't be wrong because it's an "opinon", well, they ARE wrong, and
that's no opinion, it's a fact.


hermes wrote:



Correct me if I'm wrong about what you said, Frank. Jupiter, Frank
seems to have stated his opinion. How can his opinion about the setup
of Windows XP be wrong. Opinions are not wrong or right, this is why
they are opinions.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

But there has been a real loss. That loss is Microsoft's loss of their
ability to withold their product from people who don't pay to use it.
It's an intangible loss, but it's real.


Al Smith wrote:

The fact there is a violation of the license is a loss even if you do
not see the loss.

If you can not see the potential loss for either party in this
instance you are to far gone and what you need is far outside the
scope of this newsgroup.


A "potential" loss is a hypothetical event. I may potentially lose an
excellent business deal if somebody stops me in the street and talks to
me for fifteen minutes, delaying me. You don't see anyone compensating
me for this potential loss, do you? Potentially, I could lose a million
dollars by not buying a lottery ticket this week. I repeat what I said:
Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their software.
Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full price for it in
any case. Using an unpurchased copy of MS software is a violation of
Microsoft's EULA, but it is not theft. There's a difference.

"Rock" wrote in message
...
Shane wrote:

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...

Rock wrote:

I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes
and prosecuted as such.

Shane wrote:

Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how
politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars.
Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense
of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're
talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two.


Shane,

If I copy your identification, modify them in such a way so I pass as
you
and start doing so - was anything stolen?


Doesn't sound like it. That would be an impersonation, wouldn't it? Not
that
I'd be best pleased. But the point I would make is that it is for sober
debate to determine just what that is. Objectivity not subjectivity.

Shane


Yes it's theft, commonly called identify theft, one of the fastest
growing crimes nationally, particularly on the internet. A felony in
the state of california. You don't have to obtain anything of value by
doing so either, you just have to use it in some fashion.


It's only 'theft' because it's been loosely defined that way. 'Fraud' seems
more precise. Interestingly I saw a news piece last night that started off
calling it Identity Fraud and ended up calling it Identity Theft. You seem
to know enough about Law to appreciate it has to be worded about as
precisely as scientific language. Especially people making accusations of
criminality, immorality. I disagree that it's theft, but this is only a
pedantic argument and I hate pedantry. It is certainly not analogous to the
copying of a version of Windows.

Shane

Shane wrote:
"Rock" wrote in message
...

Shane wrote:


"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...


Rock wrote:


I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes
and prosecuted as such.

Shane wrote:


Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how
politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars.
Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense
of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're
talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two.


Shane,

If I copy your identification, modify them in such a way so I pass as

you

and start doing so - was anything stolen?


Doesn't sound like it. That would be an impersonation, wouldn't it? Not

that

I'd be best pleased. But the point I would make is that it is for sober
debate to determine just what that is. Objectivity not subjectivity.

Shane


Yes it's theft, commonly called identify theft, one of the fastest
growing crimes nationally, particularly on the internet. A felony in
the state of california. You don't have to obtain anything of value by
doing so either, you just have to use it in some fashion.



It's only 'theft' because it's been loosely defined that way. 'Fraud' seems
more precise. Interestingly I saw a news piece last night that started off
calling it Identity Fraud and ended up calling it Identity Theft. You seem
to know enough about Law to appreciate it has to be worded about as
precisely as scientific language. Especially people making accusations of
criminality, immorality. I disagree that it's theft, but this is only a
pedantic argument and I hate pedantry. It is certainly not analogous to the
copying of a version of Windows.

Shane



Lol you are being pedantic to the max. and missing the essential aspect
of what makes something a crime It doesn't matter whether one calls it
theft or fraud or identify theft or false impersonation or fraudulent
pretenses. A criminal statute doesn't make something a crime by virtue
of assigning a particular "name" to it. Read the "identity theft"
statute in california for example, Penal Code section 530.5. It matters
not what name one gives it, it's the elements of the offense as set out
in the statute that define the crime.

But enough of this thread..it's gone on way too long and that's a crime.