Activation code

[Stephen]

Software is rarely stolen. What you are likely referring to are copyright
offences - but it is not stealing.

 

[D@annyBoy]

Is that net or gross profit?

I wonder what's are the cost involved in sending the CDs to beta testers,
maintaining the servers for testers?

After sales service? Maintaining a team to iron out the bugs and providing
service packs to legal and illegal users?

I do shared the opinion that the OS is too expensive for many users all over the
world, and MS's effort to provide a lean WinXP cheaply is a lame excuse.
Nevertheless, consumers do have a choice.


While sipping a glass of wine, I read that kurttrail wrote in

 

[Stephen]

Yes, that one could casually copy Windows through to Win2000 is part of the
reason for Microsoft's success. It ended up EVERYWHERE almost literally.
Heck, I went to one church a few months ago and they had a big vid screen
over the altar, or whatever they had up front, running on Windows XP.

I used to joke that Microsoft wanted to introduce Microsoft operating system
software into the religious experience - I never thought I'd actually see
it!

But Windows is what people want. If that's what they want, great - it's a
free country. Linux, in my opinion, sucks. Apples bother me. But I like
Windows on the x86/64.

 

[kurttrail]

One per household goes too far.

So you'd give MS the right to invade the sanctity and privacy of your
home?! If you read the Sunday Newpaper, do you let your wife read it
when you are done, or do you make her buy her own copy? Doesn't the
newpaper have the right to sell your household two copies of the paper?

At $1.50 a paper, the newpaper company is living more on the edge of
disaster than MS!

How about DVDs! Do you buy a copy for each household member in your
home that is gonna view it?

And what about music CDs?

Why do you think software is any different than the other kinds of
copyrighted material?

I can certainly agree that maybe you
should be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers
(but that is Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine).

LOL! No its not. MS has no right to know what I do with my copies of
software in my home. There is no legal precedent for that! Under "fair
use" the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to limit my use.

But
one per household? Hell, I know of one family that has about 15
computers between 4 different places of residence. I maintain these
computers, or at least a good number of them. Does your concept
extend that far, just because they are brothers and sisters? When
does it stop?

It extends to the household of the head of family of each household.

But that is a very rare situation. Most people are lucky enough to own
one home.

A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack of
gum. What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad, because
even at that young age he knows that you have to buy things. You just
can't take them. And, unless Microsoft allows it - you are "taking"
it.

If I shoplift a copy of software from a store, I've committed a crime
theft of PROPERTY! If I get away with the shoplifting, who does the
insurance company reimburse? The store owner or the copyright owner of
that copy of software that was shoplifted?

Now I pay for a Music CD, bring it home, and make a copy for my use in
my family car. Is there a theft under the law? If you answer yes, then
you better be prepared to back that up with someone that has been
convicted of theft for doing that?

Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves!

Predatory monopolists, and Patent & Copyright Infringers!

I don't
know.

I do. MS is the one that is a proven infringer, not one of its
customers has ever been found guilty of infringement or breech of
contract for installing XP on more than one computer for their private
non-commercial use. And before that day ever comes where that happens,
it will be a cold day in hell, or the day when MS buys out the
government!

But I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any
other software) they sell, "they have the legal right to charge for
it"!

I never said they didn't. But that doesn't give them the right to know
what I do with it after I bring it home, let alone dictate the terms of
use in my home!

They also have the "legal" right to charge what the market will
bear! And they certainly have the legal right to maximize profits for
their stock holders.

A market they monopolize. Believe me, MS is charging more than they
deserve for Win XP.

"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

MS only has the expectation to receive a fair return from the creative
labor of its employees, since copyright is bestowed to benefit society
as a whole, not to the sole benefit of the copyright owner.

Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user to
subsidize Microsoft by buying their software.

LOL! It is still mostly a server OS, and I have yet to find a distro
that will run at all on my multimedia computer.

My choice is to run a MS OS or to let my computer system, including
software to collect dust.

My system cost me thousands of dollars, to by a comparable Mac with
comparable software would cost me $3,000 to $4,000 minimum!

There are many who
would build them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux
installed - including me!

Why should I have to buy a new system to run another OS? My computer is
better than what I get built from anyone else.

But wow, that takes a bit of work to find
someone who will do this! So they buy a Dell and complain afterwards
that the O/S was forced upon them. Hogwash I say!

I built my own, over years! I can't afford to start from scratch just
to run a different OS!

I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the
world of growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates thievery.
And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!

And you are being just being a scumbag, and that is what you're brats
are going to grow up into.

It is not theivery! Can you show us ONE PERSON that has ever been
convicted of THEFT for installing the same software on more than one
computer for the private non-commercial use in their home?

If you can't then your fallacious accusation is just bearing false
witness! Lying! And what kind of brats does a LIAR turn out! HUH?!

So shove that in your effin' pipe, and smoke it out of your A**HOLE!


--
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"

 

[Richard Urban]

I see you're on the good stuff today. Congrats!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[kurttrail]

I see you're on the good stuff today. Congrats!

LOL! I just am not gonna take any sh*t from anyone trying to call me a
thief without one shread of proof that my interpretation of "fair use"
is even a civil infringement under the law, let alone the criminal act
of theft of property. You should know that I don't take sh*t from
anyone.

And you should know that it NOT is a theft. That under copyright law it
isn't the making of copies that is really the evil, it is the
distribution of those copies to others that is what copyright law was
really meant to protect against.

And I'd wager that you would never buy two copies of the same newspaper
because it would be a theft to let your wife read the same newspaper as
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"

 

[kurttrail]

I agree on the one copy per household Kurt. But further to this
copyright BS. If it is illegal to copy software, then why are
companies such as Sony to name one, allowed to legally sell machines
such as: DVD, CD burners. DVD copy/players for your living room, PVR
machines for tv signals...all of these are copyrighted, and yet the
machines exist....On the one hand every company whines about pirates,
and on the other they produce and sell machines for that purpose...Go
figure!

Sony is the biggest hypocrite of the all.

Making copies is not what is really wrong, it is distributing copies to
other people that is the real evil.



--
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"

 

[Richard Urban]

But I do consider what you advocate as being theft. I was taught that you
pay to buy something. I also believe in the EULER, until it is changed or
made invalid by a court of law. That is the way I was brought up.

I didn't call YOU a thief. Why the outburst?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[kurttrail]

Is that net or gross profit?

Net before tax.

I wonder what's are the cost involved in sending the CDs to beta
testers, maintaining the servers for testers?

How much do you buy a blank CD for? Think how little MS pays for bulk
CD press runs. Think how even less is spent in distribution over the
internet.

Think how much they save using volunteer beta testers.

After sales service?

You mean the outsourcing of techsupport jobs to India?

Maintaining a team to iron out the bugs and
providing service packs to legal and illegal users?

On staff. Got to keep them busy between Major Software revisions.

I do shared the opinion that the OS is too expensive for many users
all over the world, and MS's effort to provide a lean WinXP cheaply
is a lame excuse. Nevertheless, consumers do have a choice.

I know that I don't. My computer won't run anything but a MS OS. I
know my mother can't run Linux. She had a hard enough time learning
Windows, and a 64, she ain't learning how to use linux.

Using linux for many people means giving up everything they have
invested over the years. In hardware, software, and education. And
forget Apple. I would cost me $3000 to $4000 at the very LEAST to
replace my hardware and software.

Choice is the problem, as it means using MS OS's, or have to make
sacrifices to run another OS. That isn't a really good choice at all!

But one day soon, Linux will become a reasonable choice to make for many
computer users, and then MS is gonna be in a lot of trouble for
purposely pissing off its customer base over the last dozen years or so.
MS's days are numbered when it comes to being the dominent OS of home
consumers, and they only have themselves to blame!

While sipping a glass of wine, I read that kurttrail wrote in

--
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"

 

[Stephen]

My copy of Ghost - one set of utilities cost me $90 bucks Cdn. In the same
store Windows is $129 Cdn. I'm getting a heck of a lot more software in my
Windows pkg than in my Norton Ghost pkg. [ 1 dollar Cdn is only 0.79
dollars US ]

Even if there are high profit margins, Microsoft's price per unit retail is
still 'reasonable'. Besides, should one purchase a new PC with it pre-load,
one gets it for about 50 bucks. OEM typically goes for about $120.00 Cdn.

OSX is $145 Cdn here.
Redhat Desktop is $224.00 here [ $179.00 USD]

So I can't get 'too' excited over the price of Windows.

Heck I bought -yes legally - a copy on Windows NT 4.0 for about twenty bucks
a few months ago. Mind you it is a bit of an outa-dater but it runs x86
computers nonetheless ..

 

[kurttrail]

But I do consider what you advocate as being theft. I was taught that
you pay to buy something. I also believe in the EULER, until it is
changed or made invalid by a court of law. That is the way I was
brought up.
I didn't call YOU a thief. Why the outburst?

"And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!"

How does a contract become invalidated? Do you know?

First it is breeched, then the aggreived party sues the party that it
considers to be in breech. Then it is up to the aggreived party to not
only prove the breech, but to show an actual loss that was caused by the
breech.

So I breech the One Computer term, MS sues me, says it lost a sale of a
copy of software, and I claim it is a fair use as a defense.

Simplistically that is how contract law goes. But if MS does sue me, I
just go on my merry way. I have done nothing wrong under contract law.
As there is no law that makes breeching a contractual term illegal in
and of itself.

And in over 13 years that MS has had the One Computer term in its OS
EULA, MS has yet to pursue one individual for breech when that breech
was for private non-commercial use.

Just like my website. MS has no problem sueing people over commercial
uses of websites that are similar to theirs. The teen-aged kid, Mike
Rowe, and his site MikeRoweSoft. His problem was that he used it for
commercial use. My site, Microscum, with a look VERY similar to MS's
won't be sued over, and the main reason is that it is a non-commercial
site that is a Parody, to criticize MS.

The main reason that MS doesn't sue a private non-commercial computer
user over the One Computer term, isn't that it is afraid of sueing an
individual, they'll do that when they think they can win, it is because
they know that they stand a very good chance of losing!

The fact that MS has never sued an individual over its One Computer term
isn't an argument that supports the legal enforcability of it, but is
more a support of how likely MS thinks that it would be found NOT
enforceable in a court of law!



--
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]

My copy of Ghost - one set of utilities cost me $90 bucks Cdn. In the
same store Windows is $129 Cdn. I'm getting a heck of a lot more
software in my Windows pkg than in my Norton Ghost pkg. [ 1 dollar
Cdn is only 0.79 dollars US ]

Even if there are high profit margins, Microsoft's price per unit
retail is still 'reasonable'. Besides, should one purchase a new PC
with it pre-load, one gets it for about 50 bucks. OEM typically goes
for about $120.00 Cdn.

OSX is $145 Cdn here.
Redhat Desktop is $224.00 here [ $179.00 USD]

So I can't get 'too' excited over the price of Windows.

Heck I bought -yes legally - a copy on Windows NT 4.0 for about
twenty bucks a few months ago. Mind you it is a bit of an outa-dater
but it runs x86 computers nonetheless ..

I'm not gonna get into the minutia. MS sells how many copies of its OS
compare to Ghost?

1 billion to 10 million?

Do you understand now? And Symantec is also one of the colluding
members of the BSA Trust, they are ripping you off too more than likely.

I know I wouldn't never buy another of their products ever again. Same
with MS and EVERY single member of the BSA TRUST! I prefer buying
software from smaller venders, that actually care about keeping their
customers happy, than the mega comglomerates that just take advantage of
their customers!

--
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"

 

[Stephen]

If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever price
you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less than a million
bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a loss, I'm letting it go to
the first perosn with 50 bucks for it". You can sell it at whatever price
you want.

By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices they want
for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost thousands to get an
Apple computer with anything near up-to-date specs.

By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest model.

So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price they put
on it is well within reach of most people. And like I said, if you are
really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4 online for only twenty bucks.

So I just do not see your beef in this regard.

 

[kurttrail]

If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever
price you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less
than a million bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a loss,
I'm letting it go to the first perosn with 50 bucks for it". You can
sell it at whatever price you want.

By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices
they want for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost
thousands to get an Apple computer with anything near up-to-date
specs.

By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest
model.

So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price
they put on it is well within reach of most people. And like I said,
if you are really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4 online for
only twenty bucks.

So I just do not see your beef in this regard.

MS is a proven predatory monopoly, none of the other companies are.

MS is the one with the outrageous profit margin on its software, I
remember figuring out at the time that their markup was something in the
400% range, when they sell more copies of their product than ANY of the
other companies.

MS as a PROVEN predatory monopoly isn't like any other company at the
moment.

That will change though. MS has antagonized its customer base too much
over the years, and it will come back to bite them.

--
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"

 

[Stephen]

kurttrail wrote:


If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever
price you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less
than a million bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a loss,
I'm letting it go to the first perosn with 50 bucks for it". You can
sell it at whatever price you want.

By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices
they want for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost
thousands to get an Apple computer with anything near up-to-date
specs.

By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest
model.

So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price
they put on it is well within reach of most people. And like I said,
if you are really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4 online for
only twenty bucks.

So I just do not see your beef in this regard.

MS is a proven predatory monopoly, none of the other companies are.

They were found guilty of monopolistic practices [mostly stemming out of
Windows 95 hysteria]. But Microsoft does not have a monopoly by any stretch
of the imagination.

Wide profit margin is not a crime last time I checked.

Apple has closed its platfom to a great extent. If there's a monopolized
platform out there Apple fits the description much better than x86/64.

Most people want x86/64 for their computer and want Microsoft Windows as
their operating system for it.

 

[kurttrail]

Stephen wrote:
kurttrail wrote:


If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever
price you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less
than a million bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a
loss, I'm letting it go to the first perosn with 50 bucks for it".
You can sell it at whatever price you want.

By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices
they want for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost
thousands to get an Apple computer with anything near up-to-date
specs.

By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest
model.

So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price
they put on it is well within reach of most people. And like I
said, if you are really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4
online for only twenty bucks.

So I just do not see your beef in this regard.

MS is a proven predatory monopoly, none of the other companies are.

They were found guilty of monopolistic practices [mostly stemming out
of Windows 95 hysteria]. But Microsoft does not have a monopoly by
any stretch of the imagination.

LOL! According to the courts, you are wrong. And if it hadn't been for
a Judge that like to talked to the press too much, MS would probably be
broken up into at least two different companies right now.

MS is a monopoly, until it has serious competition with the average
computer users. Linux is still too complicated of a server OS for most
computer users. Apple is not a viable alternative, because it means
buying entirely different hardware. In most cases, the choice is MS OS
or let your computer system and software you bought over the years
collect dust, and that is not a viable choice. So tell me again,
where's the beef! Where is the Burger King to the McDonalds? Where is
the Ford to the GM? Where is this supposed VIABLE choice?

Wide profit margin is not a crime last time I checked.

I didn't say it was a crime. Nothing like blowing it out of proportion.
MS is a legally PROVEN monopoly, whether you agree with the courts
decision or not. MS was lucky they stretched out the court case as long
as they did, and got a Justice Dept. more favorable to them to come to a
compromise deal with!

Apple has closed its platfom to a great extent. If there's a
monopolized platform out there Apple fits the description much better
than x86/64.

2% of personal computers. And Apple is not the legally PROVEN predatory
monopoly.

Most people want x86/64 for their computer and want Microsoft Windows
as their operating system for it.

I'd prefer a non-MS OS myself, unfortunately no distro of Linux that
I've tried will run on my PC.

And given a REAL choice, most people rather save their money than dish
out the hundreds of bucks they have been giving MS for its OS,
especially considering the rules MS wants to impose on them. And that
REAL choice isn't here yet, but it's a comin' and MS is gonna pay!
Where's the last big monopoly today? Ma' Bell or AT&T? Think about it!

And MS has pissed its customers off all over the globe. Whole
countries, like Brazil! MS is gonna get some big time payback and its
gonna happen soon enough! And I'm gonna laugh!

--
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"

 

[Shooter]

MS was lucky they stretched out the court case as long
as they did, and got a Justice Dept. more favorable to them to come to a
compromise deal with!

I heard on one of the news segments right after all this congressional
investigation stuff was over that what really stopped it all was Bill
telling them in closed session that if they screwed with him any more,
he would pack the whole nine yards up and move off shore. Since the
whole government runs of Windows, they backed off.

And MS has pissed its customers off all over the globe. Whole
countries, like Brazil! MS is gonna get some big time payback and its
gonna happen soon enough! And I'm gonna laugh!

What goes around comes around. But even if Bill's house of cards does
come falling down because of his business ethics (or lack thereof), he
still goes out with a bundle in his pocket. Like Ted Waite(sp) that
owned and finally screwed up Gateway as a viable contender, his
unethical business practices nearly brought that company to its knees.
But Ted still walked away with pockets full of money.

That's the real problem... When these houses of cards do finally come
falling down, its always the workers at the bottom that end up
loosing, not the clowns on top that caused the debacle in the first
place by unethical business practices.

Regards,