Vista Activation transfer

K

kurttrail

Donald said:
John, you should know better!

Actually, it seems he does.
The watch word here is NOT "should", it is "MUST", since it is REQUIRED
if he wants his second instance to be a LEGAL one.

According to MS. However, the last time I checked Microsoft is not the
prevailing legal authority in this or any other country.

So anyone that does know and understand this doesn't speak in absolute
terms when it comes to the conflicting rights of the individual in their
own home, as opposed to the rights of a copyright owner in that
individual's home.

Absolutes are for the faithful, not for those who are reasonable.

Hell, I don't even agree with John's "should" but I do respect him for
being reasonable enough to acknowledge the legal gray area.
To transfer a license for ANY Windows OS onto a SECOND machine while it
is still on the first one, the EULA REQUIRES that the FIRST instance
MUST be COMPLETELY REMOVED (i.e., "deleted").

Yep. And MS's EULA is worth about as much as the paper it's not written
on, when it comes to private non-commercial use.

No copyright owner has any right to know what I do with my copy of
legally & anonymously purchased copyrighted content in the privacy of my
own home. There is no law that says some corporation that sold me a
copy of a copyrighted work is the king of my castle.

You have every right to subject yourself to Microsoft Rule in your home,
but that ain't happening in mine.

Give me FREEDOM, or give me death! I shall never compromise MY rights
in MY home for ANY corporation EVER!
I can see why you call yourself an "associate expert". You simply
aren't "expert" enough to be a REAL one, apparently.

Since you are only expert in being a conformist, who gives a flying f*ck
what you believe to be apparent?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
D

Donald McDaniel

kurttrail said:
Um, like what private home user has ever been charged with theft or
piracy, nevermind convicted, for installing software on a second
computer? What law is being violated?

I can think of the DMCP for one.

Whether or not Microsoft has arrested someone (btw, MIcrosoft COULDN'T
do this, since they are not a governmental body, and as such, cannot
enforce the Law) is irrelevant.

BTW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with installing your copy of
Vista onto a second machine. You just have to make sure to delete it
from the first.
Are you trying to troll me, because it worked, if that was your
intention, Donald. ;-)

Kurt, you know I never "troll" ANYONE. No need to. Your posts are
usually so far off the wall as to seem ridiculous already.
And there is no need to insult you, since you do that quite well
yourself.

By the way, kurt, if I remember my English correctly, "troll" refers to
a mythical monster who lives under bridges or in caves.
It also can mean "leaving the fishing pole trailing behind your boat
while fishing."

The way you (and other semi-English posters) are using it is irregular
and improper.

I NEVER do this figuratively. I DO like to "troll for bass", though.
Yum! Yum!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"


"Go away, kid, you bother me!!!"
(W.C. Fields)
 
K

kurttrail

Donald said:
I can think of the DMCP for one.

Do you mean the DMCA which states, "Other Rights, Etc., Not
Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies,
limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use,
under this title."
Whether or not Microsoft has arrested someone (btw, MIcrosoft COULDN'T
do this, since they are not a governmental body, and as such, cannot
enforce the Law) is irrelevant.

Actually no its not. Since its a matter of competing rights, that of
the individual in the privacy of their own home vs. that of the
copyright owner to violate that privacy via a shrinkwrap license on a
consumer product.

Until that conflict is definitively settled, I have the right to define
my rules in my home, Microsoft be damned.

And if MS ever has the balls to put this conflict before a court, their
lack of due diligence in enforcing their EULA for private non-commercial
use, in EULA after EULA, since Windows 3.0, will be held against them.

The legal eagles at MS know this, that's part of the reason for the PA
conjob, to convince people of something MS is too afraid to have legally
defined in a court of law.
BTW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with installing your copy of
Vista onto a second machine. You just have to make sure to delete it
from the first.

LOL! I have Vista installed for purposes of criticism and education, so
I have no reason to want to pollute another computer with it.

However there should be a new crop of Linux distros I might want to be
checking out soon.
Kurt, you know I never "troll" ANYONE. No need to. Your posts are
usually so far off the wall as to seem ridiculous already.

At least I'm reasonable enough to acknowledge the legal gray areas. You
only see one side of this conflict of rights. Microsoft's.

And this is against your own best interest as an individual consumer of
Microsoft products, because as long as MS has its sycophants like you,
the more they will be resistant to changing due to consumer pressure.
And there is no need to insult you, since you do that quite well yourself.

LOL! Actually I am quite good at taking jabs at myself. But I'm rarely
ever insulted by anything said over the internet, whether by myself or
others.
By the way, kurt, if I remember my English correctly, "troll" refers to
a mythical monster who lives under bridges or in caves.
It also can mean "leaving the fishing pole trailing behind your boat
while fishing."

BTW, don, troll has another meaning on the series of tubes that is the
Internets. Try using the Google to find out what it means nowadays.
The way you (and other semi-English posters) are using it is irregular
and improper.

And I do suppose you lift your little finger up while you sip tea?

Dude, I drink beer, still listen to rock-n-roll very loudly, and enjoy
an occasional joint or two. I don't worry much about doing things the
proper way. Life's too short to worry about the useless nonsense of
some abstract concept of what is "proper."
I NEVER do this figuratively.

Damn! I just had this picture of you on figure skates! Scary!
I DO like to "troll for bass", though.
Yum! Yum!

I'm gonna leave that one alone for my own sake. Or else I might just
have one of those rare moments where even I'm insulted by something I
wrote. ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
A

Alias

Donald said:
He means EXACTLY what he said. If you transfer a license, you are
REQUIRED to uninstall the OS from the first machine. This is NOT a
"voluntary" thing, friend. IT is MANDATORY, if you are to correctly
transfer the license

So the boys from MS will appear in a black SUV and break into a person's
home and enforce it? Puhlease.

Alias
 
A

Alias

Donald said:
There IS only ONE way to "deactivate" your installation of Vista on your
OLD machine:
_Delete_ it, or _replace_ it with a LICENSED copy of any Windows OS you
desire.

Why? Simple: When you installed your Retail Vista license on the NEW
machine, your rights to use it on the OLD machine were transferred to
the NEW machine. This means that the copy on the OLD machine is NO
LONGER LICENSED!!

So what?
ALL Microsoft consumer licenses are for use on a SINGLE MACHINE ONLY!!
If you used the SAME license you installed on the OLD machine to install
it on the NEW machine, your OLD machine is no longer licensed for use.
PERIOD.

So what?
If you KEPT the old installation, and also installed it on your NEW
machine, using it on your OLD machine is a BREACH of the License terms.

Who cares?
NOTE 1:
It appears that you have been listening to people who don't know what
they are talking about.
While it USED to be OK to install a Retail copy of _Microsoft_ _Office_
on both your Desktop and your Laptop, it has _NEVER_ been legal to do
this with the _Operating_ _System_ itself. MANY folks are STILL
confusing the EULAs of Windows and Office. They ARE different, I assure
you.
Office=may only be installed and activated on ONE MACHINE at a time.
Windows=may only be installed and activated on ONE Machine at a time.

It *can* be installed on more than one machine and *nothing* will happen
to you if you do that.
NOTE 2:
It is NO LONGER legal to install Office on both your desktop and your
laptop. It MUST be installed on ONE or the OTHER, but NOT both.

My Office 03's EULA says I may install it on a desktop and a laptop. I
don't have a laptop so I installed it on two desktops and both activated
and became genuine.

Alias
 
M

Mike Brannigan

Alias said:
So what?


So what?


Who cares?


It *can* be installed on more than one machine and *nothing* will happen
to you if you do that.


My Office 03's EULA says I may install it on a desktop and a laptop. I
don't have a laptop so I installed it on two desktops and both activated
and became genuine.

Alias

Then you are a thief.
Plain and simple admitting to breach the EULA of Office 2003 and basically
advocating piracy of Vista by your "so what" responses to valid points about
the terms of the EULA for Vista.

Since I have no interest in seeing the comments of a self admitted pirate
and thief please try and continue to use the same e-mail address.

PLONK
 
A

Alias

Mike said:
Then you are a thief.

Breaching an unconscionable EULA isn't stealing. It isn't even a
criminal offense but a civil one if MS ever grows the balls to sue
someone for breach of intellectual property. When and if they do that,
we will know if the EULA is legal or not. Until then, STFU.
Plain and simple admitting to breach the EULA of Office 2003 and
basically advocating piracy of Vista by your "so what" responses to
valid points about the terms of the EULA for Vista.

Since I have no interest in seeing the comments of a self admitted
pirate and thief please try and continue to use the same e-mail address.

PLONK

Since you have no intelligent reply, you will hide your head in the sand
and hope I go away.

Alias
 
K

kurttrail

Mike said:
Then you are a thief.

Well that makes you a liar. At most, it is a matter of civil copyright
infringement and/or a simple contract breech, not theft.

Why people lie on behalf of a soul-less corporation, I'll never understand.
Plain and simple admitting to breach the EULA of Office 2003 and
basically advocating piracy of Vista by your "so what" responses to
valid points about the terms of the EULA for Vista.

I would agree that they are valid commercial use terms, but for private
non-commercial use, I'll wait till a real legal authority decides, not
MS, and its legion of sycophants.

Blow you EULA is the Law FUD all you want. People are smart enough to
recognize your FUD for what it is.
Since I have no interest in seeing the comments of a self admitted
pirate and thief

1.) It isn't piracy to share your copy of software with yourself. But
please continue to lie otherwise. It only makes you look foolish.

2.) It isn't theft either as I already explained.

3.) Why do you care what Alias does with his copy of software in the
privacy of his own home?
please try and continue to use the same e-mail address.

Why? Can't you control yourself from opening up his posts on your own,
without the help a filter?

You'd be better off virtually snuffing me out of your existence too,
Branmuffin. :)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
F

Frank

Alias said:
Breaching an unconscionable EULA isn't stealing.

Ahhh...the old self-rationalization thing huh...hahaha...!

It isn't even a
criminal offense but a civil one if MS ever grows the balls to sue
someone for breach of intellectual property.

"grows the balls"...you and your butt-buddy kurtsie like "balls" don't you?

When and if they do that,
we will know if the EULA is legal or not. Until then, STFU.

Oh, that's nasty of you!
Since you have no intelligent reply, you will hide your head in the sand
and hope I go away.

Well, now you are an admitted liar, and an admitted thief, and a known
spammer and a known bigoted atheist?

What a wonderful personal resume, huh?
But I think we've all had clues to your "traits" now for many, many months.
I don't think you really want the spanish police nosing around in your
life do you...LOL!
Frank
 
N

NoStop

Mike said:
Then you are a thief.
Plain and simple admitting to breach the EULA of Office 2003 and basically
advocating piracy of Vista by your "so what" responses to valid points
about the terms of the EULA for Vista.

Since I have no interest in seeing the comments of a self admitted pirate
and thief please try and continue to use the same e-mail address.

PLONK

Windoze users are the biggest thieves around. Linux users don't need to
steal anything.

Cheers.

--

A US president declared war on poverty. Poverty won.
Another US president declared a war on drugs. Drugs won.
This US president declared a war on terror. Terror won.
Next?
 
K

kurttrail

Mike said:

Notice the branmuffin ignored the real issue. His lies about theft and
piracy.

Piracy is the distribution of copyrighted material to other people,
against the wishes of the copyright owner. Breaking EULA terms is NOT
piracy. At most it is a contract dispute, NOT theft.

But people who feel the need to be part of the Microsoft volunteer FUD
department are used to lying on behalf of Microsoft.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
K

kurttrail

Frank said:
NoStop, the moron linux loser wrote:


...Linux users don't need to

LOL! The only people that NEED Vista, are those fools that like being
parted with their money unnecessarily.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
A

Alias

kurttrail said:
Notice the branmuffin ignored the real issue. His lies about theft and
piracy.

Piracy is the distribution of copyrighted material to other people,
against the wishes of the copyright owner. Breaking EULA terms is NOT
piracy. At most it is a contract dispute, NOT theft.

But people who feel the need to be part of the Microsoft volunteer FUD
department are used to lying on behalf of Microsoft.

And when you call them on it, they plonk you all in a huff.

Pathetic.

Alias
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top