Buying a new copy of XP

[Alias]

"If I had 3 automobiles I certainly wouldn't go out and buy 3
license plates....."

Um, that's a violation of the Law. What was suggested is a violation of
an EULA that has never been confirmed or upheld in a court of law.

IOW, your analogy is absurd but what else is new?

Alias

 

[Guest]

The End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement.
It is covered by Copyrights laws. It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.

 

[Alias]

The End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement.
It is covered by Copyrights laws. It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.

And whether it is legal and binding or not has NOT been proven in a
court of law, now has it? Copyright violation is a civil offense, not a
criminal offence and it is highly unlikely that MS will sue a private
party for copyright infringement because they NEVER have.

Alias

 

[Tim Slattery]

It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.

Actually it does. If any disagreement arises from it - if one party
says it's invalid, for example - it will be a court that decides the
issue.

 

[Alias]

The End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement.
It is covered by Copyrights laws. It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.

My motivation: help the OP not spend money he or she doesn't need to spend.

Carey's motivation: scare the OP into buying an XP he or she doesn't
need so Carey can get a pat on the head from M$.

Alias

 

[djs0302]

"If I had 3 automobiles I certainly wouldn't go out and buy 3
license plates....."

If I wanted to drive those cars in public I would buy 3 license plates,
but if those cars sat in my backyard and never moved I wouldn't. Taxes
are a different story. Likewise, if I sold or gave away software to
the public I'd make sure the software I was selling was legal but what
I do with software in my own home is my business. I suppose you would
rather have this country turned into a police state and have people's
homes raided for illegal copies of software, music,movies,tv shows,
books, magazines, etc.

 

[Alias]

If I wanted to drive those cars in public I would buy 3 license plates,
but if those cars sat in my backyard and never moved I wouldn't. Taxes
are a different story. Likewise, if I sold or gave away software to
the public I'd make sure the software I was selling was legal but what
I do with software in my own home is my business. I suppose you would
rather have this country turned into a police state and have people's
homes raided for illegal copies of software, music,movies,tv shows,
books, magazines, etc.

Carey would be one of the ones to turn you in ...

Alias

 

[Tom]

MS is greedy and I'm tired of the hassles they suck activation only stops
honest users the pirates know how to get around it. Admit it

 

[Bob I]

Let's just say it keeps the "honest" users "honest". Which would appear
to be the intent, imagine that!

 

[Shenan Stanley]

The End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement.
It is covered by Copyrights laws. It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.

And whether it is legal and binding or not has NOT been proven in a
court of law, now has it? Copyright violation is a civil offense, not
a criminal offence and it is highly unlikely that MS will sue a
private party for copyright infringement because they NEVER have.

My only problem with the call of "it hasn't been proven" is..

Make them prove it..

If you believe in it so strongly that you respond that way everytime..
Challenge them.. Get a case going and make them prove it. You believe it is
not valid - sue 'em! You are doing nothing more than the woman who sued for
spilling a cup of hot coffee in her lap in her car and won against McDonalds
that time - so go for it. Sue Microsoft for an invalid agreement that gives
a false impression of your actual rights or that limits it in a way that is
not legal or whatever your actual case would be.

If you win - then you have won a great victory. Everyone will remember your
name forever.
If you never challenge them, then both sides are just blowing smoke.. Which
accomplishes nothing but making a lot of people cough and complain - making
for non-interesting reading on the newsgroups.

Either way - if you have actually chosen a side - why not prove your side
right once and for all..

Or is that asking too much?

 

[geak skwad]

My only problem with the call of "it hasn't been proven" is..

Make them prove it..

If you believe in it so strongly that you respond that way everytime..
Challenge them.. Get a case going and make them prove it. You believe it is
not valid - sue 'em! You are doing nothing more than the woman who sued for
spilling a cup of hot coffee in her lap in her car and won against McDonalds
that time - so go for it. Sue Microsoft for an invalid agreement that gives
a false impression of your actual rights or that limits it in a way that is
not legal or whatever your actual case would be.

If you win - then you have won a great victory. Everyone will remember your
name forever.
If you never challenge them, then both sides are just blowing smoke.. Which
accomplishes nothing but making a lot of people cough and complain - making
for non-interesting reading on the newsgroups.

Either way - if you have actually chosen a side - why not prove your side
right once and for all..

Or is that asking too much?

It is not the end user's responsibility to try to uphold Microsoft's
eula and try to prove it is a binding contract (or not) in a court of
law. It is Microsoft's responsibility to do that because it is their
license agreement. If an end user breaks their license agreement by not
following it to the letter, then it becomes a contract dispute and the
ball is in Microsoft's court to take the next step in that process. It
is rediculous to expect an end user to take the next step when it is
Microsoft's responsibility to do so.

As a matter of fact, coming into MS newsgroups and other public areas
that MS has access to and repeatedly stating over and over that it has
in fact not been proven in a court of law is challenging them IMHO.
These people who do that are making their opinion known in the public
domain. It's not just blowing smoke as you put it. Now it is time for
MS to step up to the plate and stand behind their license (which they
obviously are not doing when it comes to non-commercial use in the
privacy of one's own home). So it seems to me that MS is the only one
blowing smoke.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

It is not the end user's responsibility to try to uphold Microsoft's
eula and try to prove it is a binding contract (or not) in a court of
law. It is Microsoft's responsibility to do that because it is their
license agreement. If an end user breaks their license agreement by
not following it to the letter, then it becomes a contract dispute
and the ball is in Microsoft's court to take the next step in that
process. It is rediculous to expect an end user to take the next
step when it is Microsoft's responsibility to do so.

As a matter of fact, coming into MS newsgroups and other public areas
that MS has access to and repeatedly stating over and over that it has
in fact not been proven in a court of law is challenging them IMHO.
These people who do that are making their opinion known in the public
domain. It's not just blowing smoke as you put it. Now it is time
for MS to step up to the plate and stand behind their license (which
they obviously are not doing when it comes to non-commercial use in
the privacy of one's own home). So it seems to me that MS is the
only one blowing smoke.

It is blowing smoke.
If you are not willing to show you are breaking the agreement in a public
light - make it known in full - and then see what happens, then it is
"blowing smoke". You cannot sue someone for insinuating they don't mind if
someone might maybe not obey the EULA.

Saying that it has not been proven in a court of law is not a challenge..
that's a statement of fact. A challenge would be proving you are not
obeying the EULA, flaunting that fact and seeing what happens.

 

[GregRo]

Carey would be one of the ones to turn you in ...

Alias

Carey does forgot some things about oem. Laws very from country to
country. Those same rules (Not law-I personal don't believe it is a
law.) May not apply to the other countries. The country may only be
able to get oem and not the retail version.


On Carey's contract part saying it contract laws.
Not necessarily. A eula you have to hit ok to agree to the so called
contract. Most contracts you make with companies and people you can
negotiate with. a eula you can not be negotiated. Which would make
a eula against some state laws in the US


Greg Ro

 

[Ghostrider]

GregRo wrote:

Carey does forgot some things about oem. Laws very from country to
country. Those same rules (Not law-I personal don't believe it is a
law.) May not apply to the other countries. The country may only be
able to get oem and not the retail version.


On Carey's contract part saying it contract laws.
Not necessarily. A eula you have to hit ok to agree to the so called
contract. Most contracts you make with companies and people you can
negotiate with. a eula you can not be negotiated. Which would make
a eula against some state laws in the US


Greg Ro

But with all frankness, one has to admit that Carey's
advice is one that protects him from all attacks from
any end-users. For most end-users, and perhaps also
including the class of end-user/system builders, the
safest answer that he can give (and does) is to get
the retail version. IOW, he is preaching the adage of
causing no harm.

 

[Generalisimo]

Hitting OK, or F8 or any other key to proceed does not in any way shape
or form mean that you have read and agree to the terms of the EULA, it means
only that you hit that particular key.

Here's an example. I sent a message to Microsoft telling them not to
release
my personal information to anyone for any marketing purposes, and I stated
that by shipping me the requested CD ROM they agreed not to release my
personal data. They sent the CD ROM..Ah Ha...gotcha! Yeah, right, now
you see my point?

I like this expression: It's all a bunch of bxllsxit cowboy, try not to
step
into any of it!

 

[Generalisimo]

You give Carey way too much credit for knowing what's going on.

 

[geak skwad]

It is blowing smoke.
If you are not willing to show you are breaking the agreement in a public
light - make it known in full - and then see what happens, then it is
"blowing smoke". You cannot sue someone for insinuating they don't mind if
someone might maybe not obey the EULA.

Saying that it has not been proven in a court of law is not a challenge..
that's a statement of fact. A challenge would be proving you are not
obeying the EULA, flaunting that fact and seeing what happens.

OK, well, that is different, what you are saying now than what you were
saying before. Before you were saying that one who does not agree with
the eula should sue MS. Now you are changing your tune and saying that
one who does not agree with the eula should make it publicly known that
they are breaking the eula (if that is indeed what they are doing). I
consider it a responsibility of MS to figure out and prove if one is
breaking the eula and how. That is what they need to do if they want to
take an individual to court for it, and they never have, not for
personal use. It is part of their burden to prove that their contract
(the eula) has been broken by a person or individual who agreed to it
(which is probably difficult to prove with a post shrink wrap license
like the eula).

Do you consider the eula, wga, and wpa to be MS just "blowing smoke"?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

The End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement.
It is covered by Copyrights laws. It does not need to have any
court's approval to be a legal and binding agreement.

And whether it is legal and binding or not has NOT been proven in a
court of law, now has it? Copyright violation is a civil offense,
not a criminal offence and it is highly unlikely that MS will sue a
private party for copyright infringement because they NEVER have.

My only problem with the call of "it hasn't been proven" is..

Make them prove it..

If you believe in it so strongly that you respond that way
everytime.. Challenge them.. Get a case going and make them prove
it. You believe it is not valid - sue 'em! You are doing nothing
more than the woman who sued for spilling a cup of hot coffee in
her lap in her car and won against McDonalds that time - so go for
it. Sue Microsoft for an invalid agreement that gives a false
impression of your actual rights or that limits it in a way that is
not legal or whatever your actual case would be.
If you win - then you have won a great victory. Everyone will
remember your name forever.
If you never challenge them, then both sides are just blowing
smoke.. Which accomplishes nothing but making a lot of people cough
and complain - making for non-interesting reading on the newsgroups.

Either way - if you have actually chosen a side - why not prove
your side right once and for all..

Or is that asking too much?

It is not the end user's responsibility to try to uphold Microsoft's
eula and try to prove it is a binding contract (or not) in a court
of law. It is Microsoft's responsibility to do that because it is
their license agreement. If an end user breaks their license
agreement by not following it to the letter, then it becomes a
contract dispute and the ball is in Microsoft's court to take the
next step in that process. It is rediculous to expect an end user
to take the next step when it is Microsoft's responsibility to do
so.
As a matter of fact, coming into MS newsgroups and other public
areas that MS has access to and repeatedly stating over and over
that it has in fact not been proven in a court of law is
challenging them IMHO. These people who do that are making their
opinion known in the public domain. It's not just blowing smoke as
you put it. Now it is time for MS to step up to the plate and
stand behind their license (which they obviously are not doing when
it comes to non-commercial use in the privacy of one's own home). So it
seems to me that MS is the only one blowing smoke.

It is blowing smoke.
If you are not willing to show you are breaking the agreement in a
public light - make it known in full - and then see what happens,
then it is "blowing smoke". You cannot sue someone for insinuating
they don't mind if someone might maybe not obey the EULA.

Saying that it has not been proven in a court of law is not a
challenge.. that's a statement of fact. A challenge would be
proving you are not obeying the EULA, flaunting that fact and
seeing what happens.

OK, well, that is different, what you are saying now than what you
were saying before. Before you were saying that one who does not
agree with the eula should sue MS. Now you are changing your tune
and saying that one who does not agree with the eula should make it
publicly known that they are breaking the eula (if that is indeed
what they are doing). I consider it a responsibility of MS to
figure out and prove if one is breaking the eula and how. That is
what they need to do if they want to take an individual to court
for it, and they never have, not for personal use. It is part of
their burden to prove that their contract (the eula) has been
broken by a person or individual who agreed to it (which is
probably difficult to prove with a post shrink wrap license like
the eula).
Do you consider the eula, wga, and wpa to be MS just "blowing
smoke"?

Actually - if you follow the progression of the included conversation.. You
will see I did not change my tune - I adapted it to your argument that it
would be Microsoft's responsibility to start the suing. If you want to play
it that way instead of bringing the case yourself - I gave you the manner in
which to make that happen.. You publically and flambointly flaunt what you
are doing that you do not consider wrong..

If Microsoft does nothing - then you have proven your point - which seems to
be that Microsoft cannot/will not uphold their EULA when it comes to
individuals.

Whether or not the "burden" lies in Microsoft's court or not was never my
point - as it has not been the point of many court cases out there today.
People sue for the most ridiculous things and win. The point is that if you
believe in something so much and know there is an avenue for you to prove
your point/side correct - why don't you take it? I have never understood
the point of conviction in something if all you are going to do about it is
sit in the shadows and scream out your convictions to those who pass by.

Is Microsoft blowing smoke? I cannot say, yet. I have not seen an
individual publically and openly (without hiding behind some veil) flaunt
that they are using Microsoft products currently and will continue using
them in the way they see fit - which is in complete disreguard to the EULA
or any other agreement found with said product - agreed to by clicking on an
agree button or not. I have seen arguments and innuendos and suggestions
that people should not/do not have to follow the EULA/other agreements - but
it seems even those who preach it do not publically practice it. On the
surface it may seem obvious they do - but if someone intelligent is going to
start a case - they do not start it without solid proof of it. heh

So to answer your final question - are they blowing smoke? Only if they are
confronted directly with the proof it is happening - solid actual proof
(which is what is difficult to come by in an individual case) and nothing is
done. Then yes - smoke is being blown. The difference there - it's their
cigarettes too..

My question is - and I ask because I am curious and have not found anything
out there - has any individual actually ever been in court with Microsoft
(no matter who brought the case to light) about this?

The reason I am curious is because saying it hasn't been proven in court (to
me) is not the same as saying it has been disproven. Once the case is
actually out there - then there is are actual sides to this thing - until
there is a case - there is only smoke and mirrors - opinions. And although
it may be done everyday - I am nnot going to bring a case against anyone
unless I have solid proof of wrong-doing. I don't see Microsoft bringing a
case against an individual without said solid proof. Perhaps that is the
very reason it has not made it into court. And as for it being Microsoft's
burden to prove the EULA - yes - it is.. But they have to be challenged
before they do it.

Think of it just like the school bully that holds fear over dozens of
people - yet may not have actually touched a single one of those people.
Sure - you could say the burden of proof is in that bully's hands - but
until someone goes up to that bully and makes them prove their toughness -
all you have is people whispering in the halls that "they aren't that
tough.."

Take that as you will.

I actually don't care and feel it is an individuals decision what they do
and don't do. I do have a problem with people preaching and not doing - but
I normally could care less (unless it affects me or those I care about
directly) as long as the person practices what they preach. I don't have a
"side" in your Microsoft is wrong, EULA will not hold up thing - I actually
don't care about all that - I would just like someone to put more than their
mouth to work if they believe that strongly in something. Unfortunately -
in this case - all I can do is point out that all I see is smoke and mirrors
from both sides - without a challenge - there is no real burden of proof.