Corporate XP and SP2

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

As I said before "You are treading very close to the excuses made by
the thieves (AKA pirates) to justify their own stealing."

Call it what you want, it is wrong and dishonest people do it.
Nothing can change the fact they are dishonest whether you believe it
or not.

Whether there is loss or not is not relevant.
You are not authorized to use the license if acquired this way.
Microsoft may lose or may not.
Microsoft made the product and Microsoft determines the license terms.
It is NOT for you or me to decide if there is loss to Microsoft or
anyone else.


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.

 

[Testy]

That is the greatest piece of rationalization I have ever read! I guess it
makes you sleep better at night believing you are not a thief.

Testy

 

[Rock]

Stealing requires that something be removed from one possessor illegally
and against his will, and given over to the use of another possessor.
When someone uses a corporate license, the company that has purchased
that license hasn't lost it, or the ability to use it. Nothing has been
taken from them. Hence, no theft has occurred.

Theft consists of many things, not just what you mention --- Theft by
fraud, deception or false pretenses, theft of intellectual property,
ideas, etc, etc. It doesn't hinge on whether one party looses the
ability to use something. That is an element of certain types of theft,
but not all.

 

[Frank]

I see no reason for moralizing about corporate copies. The
installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all.
Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available
through retail channels without activation.
Whatever your source, it is incorrect.

 

[NobodyMan]

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.

MS does lose something when you steal a volume license key - they lose
the revenue that is do them when that installation of that Volume
License is not paid for.

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.

Copying can be deemed a theft of intellectual property. So yes, it is
theft no matter how you slice it or rationalize otherwise. Just
accept that and move on!

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Frank wrote

I see no reason for moralizing about corporate copies. The
installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable.

The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all.
Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available
through retail channels without activation.
Whatever your source, it is incorrect.

I have to believe you misunderstood Frank, Jupiter.

What I think Frank meant was that people who have installed the volume
license with a key that has been "blocked" are now "crippled", in that they
cannot get SP2.

I could be incorrect, but that would be (and is) how I would have
interpretted what was written by Frank. Although the truth of the matter
would be that even that will not stop people who have questionable keys.

 

[Shane]

You need to analyse this stuff unemotionally. Rationally.


Shane

 

[Shane]

MS does lose something when you steal a volume license key - they lose
the revenue that is do them when that installation of that Volume
License is not paid for.


Copying can be deemed a theft of intellectual property. So yes, it is
theft no matter how you slice it or rationalize otherwise. Just
accept that and move on!

You can equally prove that *all property is theft*. The trick is recognising
the essentially meaningless/partisan definitions.


Shane

 

[Shane]

Theft consists of many things, not just what you mention --- Theft by
fraud, deception or false pretenses, theft of intellectual property,
ideas, etc, etc. It doesn't hinge on whether one party looses the
ability to use something. That is an element of certain types of theft,
but not all.

There should be more awareness of the dividing line between theft/crime as
defined by an agreed system of ethics and that as defined by corporate and
political lobbyists. The two rarely converge but a depressingly large no. of
people let professional liars define it for them.


Shane

 

[Testy]

If one has any moral fiber at all the analysis would lead one to realize
theft is theft.

Testy

 

[Shane]

Like I said, *unemotionally*. This is about Law and Ethics. Get emotional
and you lose the plot.


Shane

 

[Rock]

There should be more awareness of the dividing line between theft/crime as
defined by an agreed system of ethics and that as defined by corporate and
political lobbyists. The two rarely converge but a depressingly large no. of
people let professional liars define it for them.


Shane

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

 

[Shane]

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

prosecuted as such.

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

 

[hermes]

The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all.
Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available
through retail channels without activation.
Whatever your source, it is incorrect.

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

 

[Shenan Stanley]

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

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?

 

[Al Smith]

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.

 

[Al Smith]

MS does lose something when you steal a volume license key - they lose

the revenue that is do them when that installation of that Volume
License is not paid for.

Microsoft would only lose future revenue under a very specific
circumstance -- if the person using a free copy of the OS would
definitely have purchased the OS, had he not been able to get the
free copy. This is usually not the case. And Microsoft would never
lose existing monies or goods (ie, real money), because the
copying of software does not in any way diminish or hinder the
software that already exists. Nobody is deprived of anything when
a copy is made. On the contrary, somebody is enriched by the act.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

This does not sound like opinion:
"The installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable."

If I misread as Shenan suspects it is "crippled" in that respect.
But other than that it is the same.
I do not see much room for opinion assuming a successful installation
with a valid Product Key.
Frank can clarify exactly what was meant.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

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.

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


A "potential" loss is a
hypothetical event. I may potentially lose