Build 6000...

[Nina DiBoy]

Build 6000 is not an evaluation copy. It is Vista Gold. The real McCoy.
It is no more timebombed than any other retail or OEM copy of Windows
(Vista, XP, or any other). Those qualified to download the images are
downloading exact duplicates of what will ship in the retail boxes in
January.

It is not legally available on any torrents because Microsoft does not use
torrents.

What law states that it is not legally available on torrents?

 

[Nina DiBoy]

I have a question for you. Would you hand your computer to the next
stranger you see on the street and let them do whatever they wanted to do to
it?

Downloading illegal software is the next best thing to handing your computer
to a stranger. Maybe even better than that, since pirated software can
contain viruses, keyloggers or backdoors that will let someone else use your
computer any time they want, steal your passwords, or just time-bomb and
wipe the system after a while.

So what's illegal about downloading software from torrents?

 

[Nina DiBoy]

The BETA versions of Vista were available to download by people who had
registered with Microsoft. If you hadn't registered, then you weren't
allowed to have it.

However, it's academic as build 6000 is *NOT BETA*. It is final.
Finished. Done.
As such, the only way to *LEGALLY* get it is to have an MSDN/TECHNET
account, have some form of software assurance deal with MS, or be an
invited/approved TechBeta tester.

Where is the law that dictates the "legal" and "illegal" ways of getting
the software?

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Colin.....


Build 6000 does not have an expiration date, however, if installed
without an activation code, you can only use it for 30 days until it
becomes a "limited" version. It must be activated within that 30 days to
continue working and to be legal.

Which law states that you must activate it in 30 days to be "legal"?

 

[Richard G. Harper]

I smell a troll.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

I smell a troll.

Then take a shower. Seriously, it is a valid question, care to answer it?

 

[Bill]

You're probably right, but I'll answer.
(I'm bored right now)

Then take a shower. Seriously, it is a valid question, care to
answer it?

Copyright law.

And how the software is distributed is irrelevant. If you don't pay
for a license (or are given one), you can't legally use the software.

 

[Slugsie]

You are kidding right?

--
</Slugsie>

Where is the law that dictates the "legal" and "illegal" ways of getting
the software?

 

[Nina DiBoy]

You're probably right, but I'll answer.
(I'm bored right now)


Copyright law.

And how the software is distributed is irrelevant. If you don't pay for
a license (or are given one), you can't legally use the software.

Wrong. It's a contract violation of the EULA, which is not a law. This
makes it a civil matter for the courts to decide. Until the courts rule
on it, it is nothing more than a contract dispute. Contract disputes
are not illegal.

 

[John Barnes]

The law that enforces the EULA.

Which law states that you must activate it in 30 days to be "legal"?

 

[Nina DiBoy]

The law that enforces the EULA.

Try citing facts instead of posting bollocks.

Are you referring to copyright law?

There have been no cases brought to court about the MS EULA, therefore
no precident has been set.

Care to give a serious answer?

 

[John Barnes]

There are many cases for precedent, however, anyone with any training knows
you don't have to have legal precedent to have a valid law.
Terms held 'not unconscionable are generally upheld. And also anyone with
training would know that UCC is applicable not copyright law.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

There are many cases for precedent, however, anyone with any training
knows you don't have to have legal precedent to have a valid law.
Terms held 'not unconscionable are generally upheld. And also anyone
with training would know that UCC is applicable not copyright law.

What are you referring to with "UCC"

Where is the case setting precedent that the MS EULA is not
unconscionable then?

 

[John Barnes]

Go back to school. If you live in the US and don't know what UCC is you
have exposed yourself. Also you don't prove a negative. You need precedent
to hold 'unconscionable', not the other way around. Here is a sample for
you. Applicable to all EULA's.

The terms of Microsoft’s End User License Agreement (EULA) for its upcoming
Vista operating system raises the conflict between two fundamental
principles of contract law. The first, and more familiar, is that parties to
a contract can generally agree to just about anything, as long as what they
agree to doesn’t violate the law and isn’t “unconscionable.” The second
principle is that the law generally disfavors the remedy of “self-help.”
That is to say that, if there is a violation of the terms of a contract, you
usually have to go to court, prove the violation, and then you are entitled
to damages or other relief.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Copyright law. More channels for legal distribution will open up (volume
licensing, for example) between now and public availability in January.
6000 is not an evaluation version so don't get into the warez stuff.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It is not shareware or freeware. If you don't activate the copy will become
disfunctional.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

This is a 20-year old topic and the answers remain the same. You buy the
license, not the software. You activate because the stuff won't work right
after 30 days if you don't.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Theft.

What law states that it is not legally available on torrents?

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Sadly, not. Nina thinks theft is legal as long as somebody else did it and
you only get from the thief.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

You are just playing "But what if?" games. Forget it and go play with
Linux.