Vista I will not be buying

David Schwartz wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...

Asher_N wrote:

"David Schwartz" wrote in
:

Differnce is that when I buy a book, I buy a physical entity that is
now mine. If you reas all software license agreements, you will
notice that you are not buying the software, but the rights to use
it.

Actually you are buying a copy of software.

You have the right to use it the milli-second after the sale.

You have the right to use a TV the milli-second after the sale.

Why? The terms of sale is that you pay money for each product, and
then you own that product.

Both the TV & the copy of software come with a shrink-wrap license.

Does the TV manufacturer have the right to renegotiate the terms of
sale so that you don't own your TV after the fact of that sale?

If no, then why do you think a software manufacturer can?

If yes, then I got a TV you can buy!

Since the TV isn't covered by copyright, it's hard to imagine how
this analogy is helpful. It should be clearly understood at the time
of sale that the TV is fully your and you can do anything with it you
please.

So why is my copy of software any different? The retailer I bought the
CD of software OWNED that copy.

On the other hand, when you buy something that is covered by
copyright, it is well known and part of the agreement that you
acquire a physical medium and some rights to the data on that medium.

"Fair use" rights. "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
a 'fair use'; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right
to such a use." - Sony v. Universal

It is thorougly understood by all that you can't do whatever you want
with the data on the medium.

I cannot make copies and distribute it to others, but I can copy it for
my own use. But that would apply to the TV too. I could make a copy of
the TV for my own use, but I couldn't sell it to others without
violating trademark and patent rights.

--
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"

Originally Posted by Greg Ro

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:35:40 +0000, Evolution54
wrote:

Like it or not, Microsoft will have a way to make you switch over.
Thats just my opinion.

What are they going to do to make you turn off xp? I don't think they
could legally do that and then even said if xp activation is no longer
supported they would have a patch.

I would like to see them try to force Mac, Linux users to use windows
Vista.

I could use Forte Agent on a Linux system using winE

Greg Ro

I think you misunderstood my statement. What I meant when I said that is they will make all their new programs only work under Vista. A perfect comparison would be like 98 and XP. Sure you can run 98 but most of the programs or games out there are based on XP, the newest OS. I am not saying that they will deactivate XP. All I am saying is that people will still use XP, however, don't blame Microsoft if they continue and continue to move away from XP in favor of Vista. Hope that make things clearer.

"Evolution54" wrote in message
...

Greg Ro Wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:35:40 +0000, Evolution54
wrote:
-
Like it or not, Microsoft will have a way to make you switch over.
Thats just my opinion.-

What are they going to do to make you turn off xp? I don't think they
could legally do that and then even said if xp activation is no longer
supported they would have a patch.

I would like to see them try to force Mac, Linux users to use windows
Vista.

I could use Forte Agent on a Linux system using winE

Greg Ro

I think you misunderstood my statement. What I meant when I said that
is they will make all their new programs only work under Vista. A
perfect comparison would be like 98 and XP. Sure you can run 98 but
most of the programs or games out there are based on XP, the newest OS.
I am not saying that they will deactivate XP. All I am saying is that
people will still use XP, however, don't blame Microsoft if they
continue and continue to move away from XP in favor of Vista. Hope that
make things clearer.

Hopefully, people will become smarter and insist that Vista not be on their
new computer. With all this you are guilty of piracy until you prove
differently twice crap has made me decide that the next computer I buy will
be a MAC.

Alias

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:39:57 +0200, "Alias"
wrote:

Hopefully, people will become smarter and insist that Vista not be on their
new computer. With all this you are guilty of piracy until you prove
differently twice crap has made me decide that the next computer I buy will
be a MAC.

Alias


I hope apple does not start this. There already are mad(Maybe)
because the new version of apple os can be installed on Intel system
with a tweak.

The reason I said maybe they are mad. Maybe that is what apple wanted
to have an excuse to come into the software market and compete against
Microsoft.


Greg Ro




Greg R

They are selling game made for 98 as well as xp.
For 9.99 at walmart
(Read some of those are shareware but most are not)

Greg R


On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 06:12:30 +0000, Evolution54 wrote:


Greg Ro Wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:35:40 +0000, Evolution54
wrote:
-
Like it or not, Microsoft will have a way to make you switch over.
Thats just my opinion.-

What are they going to do to make you turn off xp? I don't think they
could legally do that and then even said if xp activation is no longer
supported they would have a patch.

I would like to see them try to force Mac, Linux users to use windows
Vista.

I could use Forte Agent on a Linux system using winE

Greg Ro

I think you misunderstood my statement. What I meant when I said that
is they will make all their new programs only work under Vista. A
perfect comparison would be like 98 and XP. Sure you can run 98 but
most of the programs or games out there are based on XP, the newest OS.
I am not saying that they will deactivate XP. All I am saying is that
people will still use XP, however, don't blame Microsoft if they
continue and continue to move away from XP in favor of Vista. Hope that
make things clearer.

"GregRo" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:54:20 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:

Individuals will have to totally reinvent the wheel themselves, since
the law prohibits the manufacture, import, offer to the public, or
provision
of any technology, product, service, device, or component that circumvents
a
technological measure that controls access to a copyrighted work.

Most current schemes have been primitive. Cooperation from the OS and
hardware would make such schemes much more sophisticated. Unless the
individual does all the work by himself, there will be an illegal link in
the chain somewhere.

They would have to ban open source to do that, I think firefox is
here to stay.

Huh? I don't follow you.

DS

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...

Since the TV isn't covered by copyright, it's hard to imagine how
this analogy is helpful. It should be clearly understood at the time
of sale that the TV is fully your and you can do anything with it you
please.

So why is my copy of software any different? The retailer I bought the CD
of software OWNED that copy.

Because ownership of a physical medium does not imply an unlimited
license to the contents of that medium. The retailer can only sell you the
rights he has, and he doesn't have all of the rights to the data on the
medium.

On the other hand, when you buy something that is covered by
copyright, it is well known and part of the agreement that you
acquire a physical medium and some rights to the data on that medium.

"Fair use" rights. "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a
'fair use'; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
such a use." - Sony v. Universal

Yes, you do acquire fair use rights when you buy something.

It is thorougly understood by all that you can't do whatever you want
with the data on the medium.

I cannot make copies and distribute it to others, but I can copy it for my
own use. But that would apply to the TV too. I could make a copy of the
TV for my own use, but I couldn't sell it to others without violating
trademark and patent rights.

Right, that applies to anything you buy. You acquire the physical
object, but if the person who sold it to you was under restrictions as to
what they could do with it, you may inherit those restrictions as well. This
is most common with transactions involving land and works containing
embedded intellectual property, but it can happen in principle in any
transaction.

DS

No amount of protection can stop hard core hackers to crack it. Copy
protection only affects and stops law abiding users from enjoying the
fruits of their investments. Hard core individuals will always get
round anything!! I can get any satelite TV in my house but I am not
ordinary individual.

Uncle Bill decided to encrypt serial numbers of his products but there
are software out there which can decrypt them quite easily by running
from a floppy drive. you don't even have to install them!! Mickey
Mouse Stevens (MVP) is the sole distributor of one such software. If
uncle bill decided to encrypt the serial numbers for pleasure then he
surely must have enjoyed it!! His activation system is a complete
joke. I have installed retail version of Windows XP on 120 machines and
I didn't have any problems. Only fools pay for VLKs?

So don't worry about M$ Vista. It is only a window of opportunities!!!



GregRo wrote:

I apologize for the rant.

http://snipurl.com/hbl7

I have made my decision

Vista I will not be buying.

No one is not going to tell me. I can't have access to a part of the
computer or the hard drive. Imagine if a virus, spyware or adaware
got into that protected area and a virus program could not clean it.

I'm Sticking with xp & windows 98se forever.

If I have to get a new computer it will be either mac or linux system.

Greg Ro

David Schwartz wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...

Since the TV isn't covered by copyright, it's hard to imagine how
this analogy is helpful. It should be clearly understood at the
time of sale that the TV is fully your and you can do anything with
it you please.

So why is my copy of software any different? The retailer I bought
the CD of software OWNED that copy.

Because ownership of a physical medium does not imply an unlimited
license to the contents of that medium. The retailer can only sell
you the rights he has, and he doesn't have all of the rights to the
data on the medium.


The retailer owned the product, and so do I. After that copyright law
applies. And part of that is "fair use." After that, then the
shrink-wrap license. The shrink-wrap license doesn't trump copyright
law.

On the other hand, when you buy something that is covered by
copyright, it is well known and part of the agreement that you
acquire a physical medium and some rights to the data on that
medium.

"Fair use" rights. "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work
for a 'fair use'; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive
right to such a use." - Sony v. Universal

Yes, you do acquire fair use rights when you buy something.

It is thorougly understood by all that you can't do whatever you
want with the data on the medium.

I cannot make copies and distribute it to others, but I can copy it
for my own use. But that would apply to the TV too. I could make a
copy of the TV for my own use, but I couldn't sell it to others
without violating trademark and patent rights.

Right, that applies to anything you buy. You acquire the physical
object, but if the person who sold it to you was under restrictions
as to what they could do with it, you may inherit those restrictions
as well. This is most common with transactions involving land and
works containing embedded intellectual property, but it can happen in
principle in any transaction.

And the right of first sale would give me the right to use my copy of
copyrighted material.

--
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"

Originally Posted by Greg Ro

They are selling game made for 98 as well as xp.
For 9.99 at walmart
(Read some of those are shareware but most are not)

Greg R


On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 06:12:30 +0000, Evolution54 wrote:


Greg Ro Wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:35:40 +0000, Evolution54
wrote:
-
Like it or not, Microsoft will have a way to make you switch over.
Thats just my opinion.-

What are they going to do to make you turn off xp? I don't think they
could legally do that and then even said if xp activation is no longer
supported they would have a patch.

I would like to see them try to force Mac, Linux users to use windows
Vista.

I could use Forte Agent on a Linux system using winE

Greg Ro

I think you misunderstood my statement. What I meant when I said that
is they will make all their new programs only work under Vista. A
perfect comparison would be like 98 and XP. Sure you can run 98 but
most of the programs or games out there are based on XP, the newest OS.
I am not saying that they will deactivate XP. All I am saying is that
people will still use XP, however, don't blame Microsoft if they
continue and continue to move away from XP in favor of Vista. Hope that
make things clearer.

You are still NOT getting my point. All I am SAYING is that Microsoft will support Vista more than XP once they release it. I did not ever in my post say that XP will dissappear once Vista is released. I am saying that Microsoft will most likely favor Vista more because it is the NEWER operating system. So stop correcting me.

On Saturday 03 September 2005 09:19 am, GregRo had this to say in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:39:57 +0200, "Alias"
wrote:

Hopefully, people will become smarter and insist that Vista not be on
their new computer. With all this you are guilty of piracy until you prove
differently twice crap has made me decide that the next computer I buy
will be a MAC.

Alias


I hope apple does not start this. There already are mad(Maybe)
because the new version of apple os can be installed on Intel system
with a tweak.

Apple is way ahead of MickeyMouse when it comes to DRM. Just look at that
abomination called iTunes.


--
I've eXPerienced it. Now I've moved on to a REAL operating system.
No more viruses, malware, spyware and instabilities.
The time for Linux on the desktop has arrived. Try it out.

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...

David Schwartz wrote:

Because ownership of a physical medium does not imply an unlimited
license to the contents of that medium. The retailer can only sell
you the rights he has, and he doesn't have all of the rights to the
data on the medium.

The retailer owned the product, and so do I.

The retailed owned the physical medium, and so do you. The retailer did
not own unlimited rights to the use of the data on the medium, and hence
neither could you.

After that copyright law applies.

Right, copyright law applies to what license you automatically have to
the data by virtue of the fact that you lawfully acquired a copy of it.

And part of that is "fair use."

And first sale. Those are the two big sets of rights you have.

After that, then the shrink-wrap license. The shrink-wrap license doesn't
trump copyright law.

Actually, it probably does. If the shrink-wrap license is not held to be
valid, then it's nothing. If it is held to be valid, then all it could do is
take away rights you would otherwise have (and, theoretically, grant you new
ones, but how often does a license do that?).

Right, that applies to anything you buy. You acquire the physical
object, but if the person who sold it to you was under restrictions
as to what they could do with it, you may inherit those restrictions
as well. This is most common with transactions involving land and
works containing embedded intellectual property, but it can happen in
principle in any transaction.

And the right of first sale would give me the right to use my copy of
copyrighted material.

Correct, it would give you the right to use the material in the normal,
intended way.

DS

David Schwartz wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...

David Schwartz wrote:

Because ownership of a physical medium does not imply an
unlimited license to the contents of that medium. The retailer can
only sell you the rights he has, and he doesn't have all of the
rights to the data on the medium.

The retailer owned the product, and so do I.

The retailed owned the physical medium, and so do you. The
retailer did not own unlimited rights to the use of the data on the
medium, and hence neither could you.


You should take a look at Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. It
specifically limits copyright owners rights in regards to the owner of a
copy of software.

A copy of copyright material is defined earlier in Title 17 as material
objects in which a work is fixed. So owning a copy is more than just
the CD.

After that copyright law applies.

Right, copyright law applies to what license you automatically
have to the data by virtue of the fact that you lawfully acquired a
copy of it.
And part of that is "fair use."

And first sale. Those are the two big sets of rights you have.

After that, then the shrink-wrap license. The shrink-wrap license
doesn't trump copyright law.

Actually, it probably does. If the shrink-wrap license is not held
to be valid, then it's nothing. If it is held to be valid, then all
it could do is take away rights you would otherwise have (and,
theoretically, grant you new ones, but how often does a license do
that?).

Well if it is a contract then it cannot rewrite the law. The is case
law to that affect at the appellate level.

Right, that applies to anything you buy. You acquire the physical
object, but if the person who sold it to you was under restrictions
as to what they could do with it, you may inherit those restrictions
as well. This is most common with transactions involving land and
works containing embedded intellectual property, but it can happen
in principle in any transaction.

And the right of first sale would give me the right to use my copy of
copyrighted material.

Correct, it would give you the right to use the material in the
normal, intended way.


--
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"

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...

Well if it is a contract then it cannot rewrite the law. The is case law
to that affect at the appellate level.

Copyright law grants a copyright holder certain rights with certain
exceptions. You don't need to rewrite the law in order to grant the
copyright holder additional rights. See, for example ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

DS

David Schwartz wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...

Well if it is a contract then it cannot rewrite the law. The is
case law to that affect at the appellate level.

Copyright law grants a copyright holder certain rights with certain
exceptions. You don't need to rewrite the law in order to grant the
copyright holder additional rights. See, for example ProCD v.
Zeidenberg.
DS

1.) ProCD v. Zeidenberg is only overriding precedent for courts in the
7th Circuit Court. Any appellate court in the US can decide to ignore
this ruling as precedent, including the Supreme Court.

2.) ProCD v. Zeidenberg wasn't about copyrighted software at all, it
was about the commercial repackaging & redistribution of computer
database material that isn't covered by copyright law.

"ProCD, the plaintiff, has compiled information from more than 3,000
telephone directories into a computer database. We may assume that this
database cannot be copyrighted, although it is more complex, contains
more information (nine-digit zip codes and census industrial codes), is
organized differently, and therefore is more original than the single
alphabetical directory at issue in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

3.) Shrink-wrap licenses can be objectionable on the same grounds as
contracts in general. Unconscionable or violate a rule of positive law.

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

4.) The court seemed to suggest that copyright law may make "licenses"
different than a true contract, but it was not relevant to the ProCD
case, so that would have to wait the proper case.

"Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses"
(which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a
subject for another day." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Nice try, but I have actually read ProCD v. Zeidenberg a long time ago.
Maybe you should try reading it.

--
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"