If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
hey , things get kinda heated and personal around here . they're only that
way if you take them as such . while the "drones " , and they know who they are , will continue to spew the MS rule of law as written by bill , there are the "trolls" . ya know i used to take that personally because i used to stay away from the fray and just help people . this IS the MS XP "General" discussion newsgroup . NOT help and support . and the way "I" figure it any and all opinions are/or should be welcome here .. so let the games begin ;-) |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in message You mean like MS trying to rewrite an individuals "fair use" rights to the copy of copyrighted software that was legally sold to them in a POST-SALE Shrink-wrap License? -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" No Kurt, you should read for a change. Microsoft may have written the agreement, but it is a choice the user makes to accept the agreement. If the terms are unacceptable, do not agree. Make your choice Agree or not and then act accordingly. If you agree and then violate an agreement, that makes a person a liar. No rights are lost, in fact just the opposite. Until it is agreed to, there are no rights to use it. Once it is agreed, then there are rights to use. Rights that did not exist prior to the agreement. I guess you consider the ability to legally use something more restrictive than no use at all. But this goes against the idea you have that companies such as Microsoft should work and give to you on your terms while you are unwilling to do the same with whatever you produce. Nice one way street you have made. http://www.microscum.com/censored/200503031935/ -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Woody wrote:
hey , things get kinda heated and personal around here . they're only that way if you take them as such . while the "drones " , and they know who they are , will continue to spew the MS rule of law as written by bill , there are the "trolls" . ya know i used to take that personally because i used to stay away from the fray and just help people . this IS the MS XP "General" discussion newsgroup . NOT help and support . and the way "I" figure it any and all opinions are/or should be welcome here . so let the games begin ;-) They already are. The server drones seem to be pulling some posts in this thread. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
yea , been happening alot lately . lol , do you think they're actually
listening ? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Woody wrote:
yea , been happening alot lately . lol , do you think they're actually listening ? Yeah, they even pulled one of Juppy's posts in reply to you! ;-) -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
dang , talk about censorship . i was thinking that several of my posts just
got lost in cyberspace . |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
hey its late , and i'm outa here . it wouldn't be any fun if there wasn't
anyone to argue with . ;-) there are two sides here . if people asking questions here got only one side of the story ?............ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:43:10 -0500, Woody wrote: yea know , i actually like you . you post here on a linux box , and give people a clue that there really is an alternative to windows . all your other posts are informative . i just can't understand this blind loyalty you have in telling people things that aren't based on fact or law . You're OK to Woody. I try and help, and since it's a PITA to use two different Usenet apps on different boxes I've settled for PAN on this FC3 box, it's still not quite what Gravity was, but I'm learning and living with it. I actually try and provide technical support in my off-times because Usenet gave me so much assistance when I needed it, and still does from time to time. I have to blind loyalty to any Company, not even MS. As a business owner I look at licensing a little differently than if I were a home user. In the early days I used shareware without paying for it, downloaded as much as I could to learn, even use to run a questionable copy of Borlands C and then C++ product, but, after I started working with the local law enforcement people I looked at how I was doing things and decided to buy licenses for everything I used, including shareware. As it turns out, I spent about $35K that year. According to some, I should have only needed one licensed copy of each type of product as I was running the biz out of my home, but when I called to determine licensing according to the vendors I decided for myself that I would purchase the number of licenses they told me I should have - this was Adobe, Microsoft, Borland, MacroMedia, and others, it's not just limited to Microsoft. As the business grew I bought more servers/workstations, upgraded all, and bought the licenses I needed according to the licensing information I could find and from the vendors and from the vendors agents like CDW, Insight, etc... I also spent several days with MS in order to be taught how to properly license their products so that it would pass any audit. I don't personally care if I've been conned into purchasing to many licenses as I see nothing that indicates I've done that, but I'm not about to risk having to few Adobe Acrobat licenses, to few Photoshop/PageMaker, Windows 2003 Std Server, Exchange 2003 CAL's, etc... When I get a quote from Dell to furnish 25 6600 series servers with Windows 2003 Server and 2 Exchange 2003 server and 100 workstations with XP Prof, and Office 2003 SBE, I'm going to have them provide the licensing information, get a second quote from CDW/Insight, and go with the best vendor for the software and licenses - same is true with Symantec Corporate AV and SMS. This means that the customer is covered and it's on paper as being covered, and when we've had customers volunteer for an audit it's always passed perfectly - never had a comment of "Oh, you've got too many licenses". The fact that there is NO court case concerning home user rights does not mean it's legal, and it doesn't mean it's illegal, but it also doesn't mean I need to have my a$$ chewed out for following what I think is the right direction regarding licensing and the qty I believe I need. There are two sides to this issue, and since there is no legal case proven, I'm going to stick with the side that errs on caution vs recklessness. Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers pirates and thieves, and we would have no problem. We are not pirates and thieves, and not one individual have ever been sued let alone found guilty of theft or piracy for "fairly using" the copyrighted material, that was legally sold to us, and there is no law that says we are pirates and thieves. It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license, but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to "fair use" their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" means. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:28:16 -0500, kurttrail wrote: Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers pirates and thieves, and we would have no problem. How about this - if I comment on it, I'll state what MS's position on it is and add that this is MY Opinion of it. Then, if you comment about it, how about you state that your part is YOUR Opinion on what you say. Then when we're done, they have Opinions and can make up their own minds - ok? "It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license, but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to 'fair use' their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what fair use' means." Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law and WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to "fairly use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally sold to them, according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" is. That is not my opinion, it is a fact. MS, or any software copyright owner, has the right to sue, as anyone can sue over just about anything, but after over a dozen and more years of selling retail software to private non-commercial individuals, it is not very likely that ANY software company, especially MS, will challenge "fair use" in a court of law after all this time has passed. That's what PA is really all about. It is a marketing/propaganda scheme to convince people that the EULA can strip them of their "fair use," without having to legally prove it in a real court of law. MS uses the FUD surrounding PA to condition individuals into believing what they don't have the balls to legally prove. That is my opinion, anyway, though this use of PA/copy-protection as behavior modification makes the most sense, because we all know that PA, or any copy-protection, does even put a dent into REAL software piracy. The software piracy rate had been dropping since 1994 through the advent of the PC boom, and the explosion of file-sharing, until MS introduced PA/copy-protection into mainstream consumer software, and since then, the piracy rate has leveled off and remained static. And that is according to the obviously biased statistics of the BSA, that gets their piracy data from their members, like MS, Symantec, Adobe . . . . If anything copy-protection tends to have the opposite effect than intended, because all it does is **** consumers off, when they are still paying for real piracy, which is included in the price of every product, and then also having to go out of their way to prove that they aren't the pirates and thieves. The behavior modification of copy-protection will only tend to back fire in the long run, because it's a well known psychological theory that if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, that is what they are likely to become. Again, my opinion, but it is serious food for thought. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
In ,
Laurel respectfully replied ;-) Thanks for the very helpful link. It did, however, leave me with a couple of remaining questions. This article assumes that I have a "startup disk." I have nothing. The PC was given to my granddaughter, but no disks of any sort for the old operating system (XP home). The hard drive is partitioned (C and D). XP/ME is installed on the C partition, and XP/Pro is installed on the D partition. Since I don't want to revert to 95 or 98 (another assumption the article seems to make), can I just right mouse on the C drive (containing XP/ME) and click format? While logged onto XP/Pro, which lives on the D drive, of course. XP/ME is flakey, which is one reason for installing the new OS. I don't know if there's an upgrade option from ME to Pro, but it didn't seem advisable. For "flakiness" symptoms, see my other posting, "Content Advisor is broken." There is a link to specialized boot disks on the removal link. it is right at the top of the page. -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://www.michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm "Michael Stevens" wrote in message ... In , Laurel respectfully replied ;-) How do I remove the OS from the first computer? Format it. Click on the link below, or copy and paste the link into the address box if using the web based newsgroup. How do I deactivate, move to another computer or sell a previously activated XP? #06 on the FAQ list http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://www.michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message ... Laurel; 1. You can install your retail Windows XP on the new computer as long as you remove it from the first. Activation should not be a problem. 2. You have been told wrong. Some versions of Microsoft Office allow multiple installations but no versions of retail Windows allow more than one installation at a time. Read your specific EULA for details: Start/Run Type "winver" ENTER Click "End-User..." to access the EULA. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Laurel" wrote in message ... What are the rules for installing XP Pro on multiple PCs? 1 - If you get a new PC, obviously you have to re-install. Do you get into difficulties by "activating your system" more than once? 2 - I've been told that it's perfectly OK to install Windows on your home PC and your laptop. Actually, I've been told that 3 installations is the legal limit. Is this true? |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Leythos wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:44:57 -0500, Woody wrote: maybe MS should contact Webster and ask that the definition of consumer activist be changed to troll . There is a difference between being a consumer advocate and what is sometimes posted by some in this group. A troll is one that disrupts a group. LOL! That's what the Brits said about Ben Franklin and the rest of our founding fathers. And one day we will come and bring you rebellious colonials back into line. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Laurel wrote:
What are the rules for installing XP Pro on multiple PCs? You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on which you install it. As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S. copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine final applicability in your specific locale.) The only way in which WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult) multiple installations using a single license. 1 - If you get a new PC, obviously you have to re-install. Do you get into difficulties by "activating your system" more than once? Assuming a retail license (OEM licenses are not transferable under any circumstances), simply remove WinXP from the computer it is currently on, and install it onto the new one. If it's been more than 120 days since you last activated that specific Product Key, you'll most likely be able to activate via the Internet without problem. If it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute phone call. Here are the facts pertaining to activation: Piracy Basics - Microsoft Product Activation http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/ Windows Product Activation (WPA) http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm 2 - I've been told that it's perfectly OK to install Windows on your home PC and your laptop. Actually, I've been told that 3 installations is the legal limit. Is this true? No, it's not at all true. Retail licenses of Office (and many other Microsoft products) permit the installation of the software onto one desktop computer and one portable computer, provided that the license owner is the primary user of both machines, but this has never been the case with Microsoft operating systems. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - RAH |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:07:43 -0500, kurttrail wrote: Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law and WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to "fairly use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally sold to them, according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" is. I've read your "Fair Use" posts, and I don't interpret the information the same way you do. I see that it's clear that it's for backup purposes only, that it does not allow more than one active installation against any licensing rules by the vendor. Actually, it sounds like you are confusing "fair use" with Section 117(a), as you always make the mistake that Parts (1) & (2) have the conjunction "and" between them, meaning that the conditions of both Parts must be met, instead of the reality that they are actually combined by "or," meaning that you only have to fulfill the conditions of either Part (1) OR Part (2). Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, OR (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese: Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided: (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, OR "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful" That is a separate & distinct argument from that of "fair use." In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" means when it come to individuals. "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html They didn't just limit individual "fair use" to that of a specific type of copyrighted material in that case, but they left the definition broad because individuals have to "fair use" of any type of copyrighted material they have access to. It was one of the main rationales why that the video recorder wasn't an infringement, because its main use wasn't an infringement, that of individuals reproducing and using those copies of copyrighted material. "Fair Use" as written in copyright law, is mainly the talking about the Public and/or commercial "fair uses" of copyrighted material, so in the Betamax case the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" is for us individuals in the privacy of our own homes. No copyright owner has the right to KNOW what we do in our homes with our copies of our copyrighted material. They do not possess that exclusive right. Remember we are supposedly a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. We are not the gov't for the corporate copyright elite. Later in the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court makes reference to another Supreme Court decision of the meaning of copyright, and for who it is that is suppose to benefit the most from it. "The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html Being paid by an individual for a copyrighted work once, is a "fair return," and being paid more than once for the same copyrighted material by an individual is more than a "fair return" and isn't in the general public good. Now Bruce likes to bring up what is written at the Stanford U. site, which is stating the public and/or commercial aspects of "fair use," but one place where private non-commercial "fair use" and public and/or commercial "fair use" are similar is when the copyright owner disagrees with the interpretation of "fair use" being used. "Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages." - http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er9/index.html So in a situation like copyrighted software, where a company like MS has known that its copyrighted material has been "fairly used" for more than a dozen years, and has yet to legally disagree with any definition of "fair use" of their software in a court of law, after all this time it is highly unlikely that MS would now challenge this in court, because: 1.) the length of time that they didn't challenge this would be held against them, and, 2.) they don't possess the exclusive right to such a use, and it would be highly unlikely that a court would rule in favor of a corporation to have rights in someone's home to tell them how an individual can use copyrighted material in the privacy of that home, and that being in the general public good. MS has always known that they really don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning such a case, and that is the main reason for the behavior modification aspects of PA. To win through marketing and propaganda, what it knows it cannot win under the law and under existing legal precedent. So MS, like any of us, has the right to sue for just about anything, but that doesn't mean that they would win. If they thought they could, then they would have done as the Music Industry has done over file-sharing. And if you look at those suits closely, the Music Industry is only going after those that make their music collections available for upload to other, in other words, distributing music to others, and the Music Industry hasn't gone after anyone that has just downloaded music, because individuals have the right to "fairly use" the copyrighted material that is available to them for their own private use, but not the right to redistribute it to others. This is how copyright and "fair use" works today. One day the corporate copyright lobby may get Congress to change Copyright Law and remove some of the limitations placed on Copyright Owners under Copyright Law, but until then, we, as private non-commercial individuals have the right to "fairly use" the copyrighted material we have access to. No copyright owner possess the right to say otherwise. That is a fact jack, until proven otherwise, or Copyright Law is rewritten by Congress, not by a corporate copyright owner in a post-sale shrink-wrap license. With that said, just because it's not been "Challenged" in court, that does not make the action legal. What would make it "illegal," is if a court ruled that it is an infringement, which no court has, or Congress rewrites Copyright Law. Until either happens, it is NOT an infringement and therefore perfectly legal. What happens if the courts rule in MS's favor over it - what happens to all of those inproper installs and the people running them? When that fairy tale happens, give me a call. That is a what if, that is highly unlikely to ever happen, after all this time has passed. What is more likely is for the corporate copyright lobby buying off Congress to change Copyright Law as it exists today. Oh, and there you go again, not acknowledging that you are snipping up my post, and taking my words out of the whole context that they were written. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Laurel wrote: What are the rules for installing XP Pro on multiple PCs? You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on which you install it. As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S. copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it is installed. snip LOL! Section 117 is a limitation of the rights of the Copyright Owners, not a limitation on the rights of the owner of a copy! But Bruce is in love with the the delusions to the contrary! As a MicroNazi, he knows the power of repeating the same nonsense over and over again! http://tinyurl.com/hhjj - 314 times with his previous incarnation, "to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws." http://snipurl.com/d81h - 125 times with his latest incarnation, "to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S. copyright." Bruce is a MicroNazi propagandist, plain and simple. Goes by the Goebels theory that if you repeat something long enough, people will start believing it, no matter that it is a total fabrication of reality. http://microscum.com/bruce/ -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Rules about copies of XP?
what is FUD?
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Leythos wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:28:16 -0500, kurttrail wrote: Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers pirates and thieves, and we would have no problem. How about this - if I comment on it, I'll state what MS's position on it is and add that this is MY Opinion of it. Then, if you comment about it, how about you state that your part is YOUR Opinion on what you say. Then when we're done, they have Opinions and can make up their own minds - ok? "It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license, but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to 'fair use' their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what fair use' means." Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law and WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to "fairly use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally sold to them, according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" is. That is not my opinion, it is a fact. MS, or any software copyright owner, has the right to sue, as anyone can sue over just about anything, but after over a dozen and more years of selling retail software to private non-commercial individuals, it is not very likely that ANY software company, especially MS, will challenge "fair use" in a court of law after all this time has passed. That's what PA is really all about. It is a marketing/propaganda scheme to convince people that the EULA can strip them of their "fair use," without having to legally prove it in a real court of law. MS uses the FUD surrounding PA to condition individuals into believing what they don't have the balls to legally prove. That is my opinion, anyway, though this use of PA/copy-protection as behavior modification makes the most sense, because we all know that PA, or any copy-protection, does even put a dent into REAL software piracy. The software piracy rate had been dropping since 1994 through the advent of the PC boom, and the explosion of file-sharing, until MS introduced PA/copy-protection into mainstream consumer software, and since then, the piracy rate has leveled off and remained static. And that is according to the obviously biased statistics of the BSA, that gets their piracy data from their members, like MS, Symantec, Adobe . . . . If anything copy-protection tends to have the opposite effect than intended, because all it does is **** consumers off, when they are still paying for real piracy, which is included in the price of every product, and then also having to go out of their way to prove that they aren't the pirates and thieves. The behavior modification of copy-protection will only tend to back fire in the long run, because it's a well known psychological theory that if you treat a person like a criminal long enough, that is what they are likely to become. Again, my opinion, but it is serious food for thought. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.com/mscommunity "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows Server 2003 - Shared Fax - Long Distance Dialing Rules | Spencer Morley | Printing and Faxing with Windows XP | 5 | May 16th 05 10:07 PM |
Windows XP and DOS commands | Lexus | General XP issues or comments | 13 | April 28th 05 11:02 AM |
Cannot print multiple copies | daveg | Printing and Faxing with Windows XP | 0 | January 26th 05 05:33 PM |
Another question about "Rules" | David Schrader | Customizing Windows XP | 5 | January 25th 05 01:44 AM |
Fax and Calling Card dialing rules | e6bwhiz | Printing and Faxing with Windows XP | 6 | September 22nd 04 10:20 AM |