"Conclusion-Jumping!"

[kurttrail]

In the thread, "MS Stole It's DRM From InterTrust" - Wednesday, July
16, 2003 9:01 PM, I *claimed* that MS was a thief though that has yet to
be proven in a court of law. I readily confessed that I was wrong to do
this, because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS infringed on
their patents. I *jumped* to a *conclusion*!

Now MS *claims* to be hurt by casual copy piracy from their paying
customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to disprove MS's *claims* of casual copy piracy; it is
up to MS to prove their *claims* of casual copy piracy are in fact true!
Why should anyone believe MS's "Conclusion-Jumping" that has yet to be
legally proven, anymore than my "Conclusion-Jumping" about the
InterTrust ruling? Just because MS *claims* to be the victim
casual-copying piracy by it's paying customers, does not mean an effin'
hill of beans unless the can legally prove it! Right?

I could *claim* that any of you are thieves or pirates, but why should
anybody believe that
unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's *CLAIMS*
of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to legally prove it in
even one case before a court of law?

So in conclusion, I was wrong for my "Conclusion-Jumping" that MS stole
their DRM from InterTrust. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping"
that their paying customers are "casual copy" pirates! The only
difference between these two examples of "Conclusion-Jumping" is that
the *claims* I made against MS are actually before a court yet to be
decided, while MS's *claims* of casual copy piracy by their paying
customers are nothing more than MicroHot-Air at present!

"Or is it only OK to point out my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with MS over PA?"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[a]

-----Original Message-----
In the thread, "MS Stole It's DRM From InterTrust" - Wednesday, July
16, 2003 9:01 PM, I *claimed* that MS was a thief though that has yet to
be proven in a court of law. I readily confessed that I was wrong to do
this, because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS infringed on
their patents. I *jumped* to a *conclusion*!

Now MS *claims* to be hurt by casual copy piracy from their paying
customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to disprove MS's *claims* of casual copy piracy; it is
up to MS to prove their *claims* of casual copy piracy are in fact true!
Why should anyone believe MS's "Conclusion-Jumping" that has yet to be
legally proven, anymore than my "Conclusion-Jumping" about the
InterTrust ruling? Just because MS *claims* to be the victim
casual-copying piracy by it's paying customers, does not mean an effin'
hill of beans unless the can legally prove it! Right?

I could *claim* that any of you are thieves or pirates, but why should
anybody believe that
unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's *CLAIMS*
of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to legally prove it in
even one case before a court of law?

So in conclusion, I was wrong for my "Conclusion- Jumping" that MS stole
their DRM from InterTrust. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping"
that their paying customers are "casual copy" pirates! The only
difference between these two examples of "Conclusion- Jumping" is that
the *claims* I made against MS are actually before a court yet to be
decided, while MS's *claims* of casual copy piracy by their paying
customers are nothing more than MicroHot-Air at present!

"Or is it only OK to point out my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with MS over PA?"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

bill gates is the richest man in the world,therefore he

is allowed to do anything he wants to anybody he wants.

your just common pond scum like the rest of us and
therefore you are not allowed to do anything.

 

[Lorne Smith]

Unfortunately, MS don't *have* to prove casual copying occurs to justify
using WPA. They believe it happens so they are well within their rights to
attempt to stop it by any means they can. You would expect ANY company to
do their best to protect their investment and Microsoft are NOT alone in
using a form of product activation... Many games use a similar system,
though normally only for online play,
many applications also use some form of online verification before the
product can be used... MS's implementation merely goes a step further..

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like WPA as much as the next guy. It's a
pain in the rear and it crops up when you least expect it (what idiot
decided a HD's serial number should count!?!). BUT, I also accept that MS
do have the right to try to protect their product. There are many different
ways they could have chosen to protect their product, but they decided on
WPA... their choice. If you don't like it you also have a choice of not
purchasing the product.

Many bitch and moan about the terms of the EULA being both unfair and
illegal. If you would bother to read the EULA of other programs and
commercial OS's, you'll find similar clauses restricting their use on more
than 1 PC. Again many people consider this unfair and illegal. I find
these terms generally reasonable. If they allowed you to install it on as
many PC's as you want, you could take it round to your mates houses and give
them all a free copy, hardly fair. BUT, it's equally not fair that you have
to buy a seperate version for each PC you personally own.

I honestly think that the industry as a whole needs to look at how EULA's
are written. You should be allowed to install it on as many PC's as you
personally own, but not on anyone elses computer. It's reasonable to ask
you to verify you really do own the product when you install it, but not
reasonble that you should keep proving it when you add some new hardware or
format your drive.

"Jumpting to conclusions" is human nature. In your opinion MS stole DRM
from InterTrust... My opinion is that they "may* have done so, but I'm not
convinced. You are quite entitled to your opinion just as I am mine, and I
don't think you needed to apologise for it Maybe though you should just
insert a IMHO in the post

At the end of the day, if the end user doesn't like the terms of using
software, then they should not use it. What the software publishers SHOULD
do though is to provide the full EULA printed on the box so the user can
read it BEFORE they purchase it because as we all know, nobody bothers to
read it when it pops up on screen, you just click the ACCEPT option... Then
they can't go spouting off about something they had the chance to read
before they paid their money...

Just my opinion

Lorne

 

[kurttrail]

Unfortunately, MS don't *have* to prove casual copying occurs to
justify using WPA.

They do, if that's the reason that they want their customers to accept
PA!

They believe it happens so they are well within
their rights to attempt to stop it by any means they can.

Thought Crime! Prevent something that hasn't yet happened, and isn't
all that likely to happen at all!

You would
expect ANY company to do their best to protect their investment and
Microsoft are NOT alone in using a form of product activation...

I know! That's why this intrusion into the privacy of our homes needs
to be stopped!

From "Re: MS Stole It's DRM From InterTrust" - 2003-07-20 07:21:38 PST:

"And now the rest of MS's BSA Trust seems to be adopting the same
measures. Soon to reinstall all your software after a major hardware
upgrade, you'll have to spend half your day on the phone explaining to
different software companies that you upgraded your computer. Then that
hardware fails and you have to send it back for repairs. So you put in
your old hardware to get you by in the mean time. Bang, Bang, Bang,
Bang, Bang! There goes another day shot down the tubes on the phone
explaining that it still your effin' computer, just different hardware
because of defective hardware you just upgraded to. Then 45 days later
the manufacturer decides not to fix your hardware, but replace it &
actually send it to you, by the slowest means possible, you tear your
computer apart again, reinstall everything, spend another day on the
phone explaining to all your buddies at all the software companies, that
you really aren't a thief, just having a little bit of trouble
maintaining a functioning computer. Now a month or so goes by, and you
find that the hardware is really just a piece of sh*t, and go out and
replace it, writing off the sh*t as a lost cause. Bang, Bang, Bang,
Bang, Bang! Another day shot to hell, at best, with all these different
companies differing activations policies, it might just be a lot worse."

"This scenario with the hardware actually happened to me with
multifunction Mobo's this year, thank god I only had to go though it
with MS over Office XP, but soon who knows what it's really gonna be
like when all the members of the BSA Trust adopt PA, but it not gonna
make the overall computing experience any friendlier or easier, that
much I can say." - http://tinyurl.com/i138

Many games use a similar system, though normally only for online play,
many applications also use some form of online verification before the
product can be used... MS's implementation merely goes a step
further..

A step too far into intruding into the privacy of our homes & our
computers!

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like WPA as much as the next guy.
It's a pain in the rear and it crops up when you least expect it
(what idiot decided a HD's serial number should count!?!). BUT, I
also accept that MS do have the right to try to protect their
product.

But not by any means! There already are legal ways to handle any theft,
or copyright piracy! Though the court system, not in some kangaroo PA
virtual court for some Thought Crime that hasn't ever been proven to be
a crime to begin with!

There are many different ways they could have chosen to
protect their product, but they decided on WPA... their choice. If
you don't like it you also have a choice of not purchasing the
product.

And I won't! But with $49 billion in the bank MS can afford to tell
it's customers that they are wrong, for a while, but other members of
the BSA Trust don't have that to back them up! And they actually have
competitors that believe that the customer is always right that sell
very similar products!

Many bitch and moan about the terms of the EULA being both unfair and
illegal.

So many people bitch and moan here about people who want to "fairly use"
the very expensive software, that they bought with their hard earned
money in the midst of a recession, being both unfair and illegal.

It just depends on who's perspective you look at this from, that of the
corporate copyright owners, or that of all us individual consumers.

And most of the individuals on this planet happen to only be a member
the latter group!

If you would bother to read the EULA of other programs and
commercial OS's, you'll find similar clauses restricting their use on
more than 1 PC.

Yes, if I owned the copyright to some software, I'd know put that in my
shrinkwrap license too, for commercial and/or public usage, but I would
know that there is no way in hell that I could legally enforce those
usage terms on individuals using their legally purchased software in the
privacy of their own homes.

On www.kurttrail.com, I put a copyright notice on it. If I ever saw one
of my pictures being used in a commercial publication or for public
display without my prior permission, you can bet I'm gonna get my lawyer
on the phone real quick! But if some schmuck sitting in his home wants
to photoshop my photos for his own personal use, I know he has every
right to do that, because that's a "fair use," just like you can rip
MP3's from your legally purchased CD's, or install your legally
purchased software on the computers that you own, that you use for you
own private use.

Again many people consider this unfair and illegal.

Violates a positive law, and unconscionable on private individuals, yes!
Legal for commercial, and/or public use, yes!

I find these terms generally reasonable.

I do too, but just in commercial and/or public use, just not for private
use!

If they allowed you to
install it on as many PC's as you want, you could take it round to
your mates houses and give them all a free copy, hardly fair.

No, then that's not private anymore. And MS should take anybody that
shares their software with other people to court, just like the RIAA
trying to do with file sharing!

BUT,
it's equally not fair that you have to buy a seperate version for
each PC you personally own.

I agree with that!

I honestly think that the industry as a whole needs to look at how
EULA's are written. You should be allowed to install it on as many
PC's as you personally own, but not on anyone elses computer. It's
reasonable to ask you to verify you really do own the product when
you install it, but not reasonble that you should keep proving it
when you add some new hardware or format your drive.

"Jumpting to conclusions" is human nature. In your opinion MS stole
DRM from InterTrust... My opinion is that they "may* have done so,
but I'm not convinced. You are quite entitled to your opinion just
as I am mine, and I don't think you needed to apologise for it

I never did actually apologize!

Maybe though you should just insert a IMHO in the post

Nobody would ever believe the "H" part of it! LOL!

At the end of the day, if the end user doesn't like the terms of using
software, then they should not use it.

I agree, but after accepting any contract terms that you later find is
either unconscionable and/or a violation of a positive law, you have
every right to break that contract, under the present laws of the US,
and it's then up to the other party in the contract to sue you, if they
think they stand a chance of getting a judge to agree that their
contract actually is legally enforceable.

What the software publishers
SHOULD do though is to provide the full EULA printed on the box so
the user can read it BEFORE they purchase it because as we all know,
nobody bothers to read it when it pops up on screen, you just click
the ACCEPT option... Then they can't go spouting off about something
they had the chance to read before they paid their money...

I think the software copyright owners should leave alone us in the
privacy of our own homes, and screw having licensing terms on retail
products for private individuals, because they have no right to know
what we privately do in our homes. They should also sue those that
actually are engaged in software piracy though the courts.

Just my opinion

A fair one at that!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Lorne Smith]

See inline, with lots of snips

But not by any means! There already are legal ways to handle any theft,
or copyright piracy! Though the court system, not in some kangaroo PA
virtual court for some Thought Crime that hasn't ever been proven to be
a crime to begin with!

But these ways mean they have to take proactive action, which costs money...
and we all know the poor state of their poor little bank account

No, then that's not private anymore. And MS should take anybody that
shares their software with other people to court, just like the RIAA
trying to do with file sharing!

File sharing... a whole new topic to argue about Perhaps we'll leave THAT
one alone for a bit!

I agree with that!

Bloody hell.. we agree on something!

I never did actually apologize!

No, but a confession of error is pretty close ;-)

Nobody would ever believe the "H" part of it! LOL!

Too true! LOL

I agree, but after accepting any contract terms that you later find is
either unconscionable and/or a violation of a positive law, you have
every right to break that contract, under the present laws of the US,
and it's then up to the other party in the contract to sue you, if they
think they stand a chance of getting a judge to agree that their
contract actually is legally enforceable.

But there is also international law to take in to account. What may be
actionable in the US isn't always actionable in the UK or other countries...
Part of the problem of defining whether it IS in violation of positive law..
It may be so in the US (and I'm not saying it is), but it may not be under
international law which also would have to be taking into account... Though
I think local laws would tend to take precedence here, not sure...

I think the software copyright owners should leave alone us in the
privacy of our own homes, and screw having licensing terms on retail
products for private individuals, because they have no right to know
what we privately do in our homes. They should also sue those that
actually are engaged in software piracy though the courts.

We all wish they'd leave us alone at home... problem is, that's where most
of the copyright breaching goes on

You know... I really wish Microsoft WOULD take someone to court over this
issue... At least then we'd get a legal standing on it all (until it gets
challenged on appeal!)

A fair one at that!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Nice to have a polite & civil discussion with you Kurt... I'm off home now
so I probably won't be responding until Monday now... Got better things to
do with my free time!

Have a good weekend

Lorne

 

[Lorne Smith]

Something else I forgot to add before I go home

Years ago I had a feeling MS would eventually do something to "lock" you in
to their OS's... Think about it... For years and years it was incredibly
easy to copy MS software and many people did it. Now they're intellectually
and emotionally dependant on MS's product, MS have decided to put a stop to
all the copying, knowing full well that the market is so saturated with
Windows that people are going to want to stay with it, therefore MS are
essentially getting themselves extra business now by having made it really
easy to copy the software previously....

Pretty smart IMHO, though of somewhat dubious morality..... Of course, I
could easily be wrong as this would entail a LOT of forethought and
intelligence on the side of MS bosses....

On the other hand though, one must thank MS for playing a huge part in
bringing the computer into the home... If it had been left to the likes of
IBM, we'd all be spending £$100's just for 10 minutes on a library
mainframe...

I would ask one thing though... why do people insist on blaming Bill Gates
personally for everything MS does? It's not as if he has much to do with
the day to day business decisions anymore

Lorne

 

[kurttrail]

See inline, with one big snip!

See inline, with lots of snips


message


But there is also international law to take in to account. What may
be actionable in the US isn't always actionable in the UK or other
countries... Part of the problem of defining whether it IS in
violation of positive law.. It may be so in the US (and I'm not
saying it is), but it may not be under international law which also
would have to be taking into account... Though I think local laws
would tend to take precedence here, not sure...

That's why I argue US law, because I live in the USA, and MS is also a
US company. And since GW Bush likes dissing international courts,
treaties, and other alliances, I doubt MS would get away with trying to
apply international law on American Citizens! [There's a silver lining
to every storm cloud!]

We all wish they'd leave us alone at home... problem is, that's where
most of the copyright breaching goes on

Here I disagree with the latter part of your statement! Most of the
copyright piracy happens in countries with weak copyright laws, mostly
in Asia!

http://microscum.kurttrail.com/sprl.pdf

You know... I really wish Microsoft WOULD take someone to court over
this issue... At least then we'd get a legal standing on it all
(until it gets challenged on appeal!)

Don't hold your breath!

But the US Supreme Court has a very good precedent of how "fair use" &
indivdiuals applies to Copyright owners.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a
use." -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Nice to have a polite & civil discussion with you Kurt...

I am capable of it, and even though we disagree on certain parts of the
discussion. I usually only become "un-civil" when others start playing
USENET games first, though I'm not perfect, and I have jumped off the
deep end with little provocation too, at times.

I'm off
home now so I probably won't be responding until Monday now... Got
better things to do with my free time!

Me too! It's my neice's 9th birthday tommorrow!

Have a good weekend

You too, Lorne!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

Something else I forgot to add before I go home

Years ago I had a feeling MS would eventually do something to "lock"
you in to their OS's... Think about it... For years and years it was
incredibly easy to copy MS software and many people did it. Now
they're intellectually and emotionally dependant on MS's product, MS
have decided to put a stop to all the copying, knowing full well that
the market is so saturated with Windows that people are going to want
to stay with it, therefore MS are essentially getting themselves
extra business now by having made it really easy to copy the software
previously....

Pretty smart IMHO, though of somewhat dubious morality..... Of
course, I could easily be wrong as this would entail a LOT of
forethought and intelligence on the side of MS bosses....

Yeah, I believe that's how they built their PC desktop monopoly, on the
back of knowingly allowing casual copying to occur!

On the other hand though, one must thank MS for playing a huge part in
bringing the computer into the home... If it had been left to the
likes of IBM, we'd all be spending £$100's just for 10 minutes on a
library mainframe...

Timing & luck! If it wasn't MS, some other company would have step up
to the plate.

I would ask one thing though... why do people insist on blaming Bill
Gates personally for everything MS does?

Because he is the richest person on the planet!

It's not as if he has much
to do with the day to day business decisions anymore

He is the phyical embodiment of the company he started. I think he
probably has to have a pretty good sense of humor about it by now! I
know I'd be laughing all the way to the bank, if I were him!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[D.Currie]

Something else I forgot to add before I go home

Years ago I had a feeling MS would eventually do something to "lock" you in
to their OS's... Think about it... For years and years it was incredibly
easy to copy MS software and many people did it. Now they're intellectually
and emotionally dependant on MS's product, MS have decided to put a stop to
all the copying, knowing full well that the market is so saturated with
Windows that people are going to want to stay with it, therefore MS are
essentially getting themselves extra business now by having made it really
easy to copy the software previously....

Pretty smart IMHO, though of somewhat dubious morality.....

<snip>

It's pretty much the same as companies who've produced products as freeware,
then after they have a sufficient customer base and an upgrade, you need to
buy the product.

Or you can get a pared-down version for free, but you need to pay if you
want the full function.

Or time-bombed applications.

Or free sample products at the grocery store.

Take a look at the way Linux is going. For the longest time, you never had
to pay anything, ever. Now you can buy boxed product that includes books and
support. And there are other Linux-related things that you can buy. People
who can't figure out how to get the free stuff and install it themselves are
perfectly happy to pay. Maybe one of these days those that pay for a Linux
distro will outnumber the ones who get it free.

Microsoft isn't the only one that made their product easy to copy and
install, and I'm willing to bet others will follow suit with the activation
requirement. Needless to say, there were also a lot of copy protection
schemes though the years that had various levels of success (and various
levels of annoyance).

I think one of the biggest differences lately is the users. Back when Win
3.1 was around, people who had computers at home generally had only one.
When they got a new computer, they upgraded or traded in. Now people have
multiple computers at home, thus they "need" multiple copies of the OS and
the applications. So stopping casual copying within a household can mean
much more revenue now that it did back in the olden days.

 

[kurttrail]

<snip>

It's pretty much the same as companies who've produced products as
freeware, then after they have a sufficient customer base and an
upgrade, you need to buy the product.

Or you can get a pared-down version for free, but you need to pay if
you want the full function.

Or time-bombed applications.

Or free sample products at the grocery store.

Take a look at the way Linux is going. For the longest time, you
never had to pay anything, ever. Now you can buy boxed product that
includes books and support. And there are other Linux-related things
that you can buy. People who can't figure out how to get the free
stuff and install it themselves are perfectly happy to pay. Maybe one
of these days those that pay for a Linux distro will outnumber the
ones who get it free.

Microsoft isn't the only one that made their product easy to copy and
install, and I'm willing to bet others will follow suit with the
activation requirement. Needless to say, there were also a lot of
copy protection schemes though the years that had various levels of
success (and various levels of annoyance).

I think one of the biggest differences lately is the users. Back
when Win
3.1 was around, people who had computers at home generally had only
one. When they got a new computer, they upgraded or traded in. Now
people have multiple computers at home, thus they "need" multiple
copies of the OS and the applications. So stopping casual copying
within a household can mean much more revenue now that it did back in
the olden days.

So stopping something that's not illegal to do, will make software
copyright owners more revenue than back in the "olden days?!" LOL!

Not one case has software casual copying between individuals that aren't
even in the same has even been brought before a court, let alone
successfully litigated! And now you think it cool outlaw sharing within
the privacy of a household too?! ROFL!

Let me guess, you believe that Iraq had actually had weaponized WMD's
ready to be deploy in the battlefield with less the 20 minutes notice
too!

You know there probably are still subversive Communists in our gov'ts
too, maybe it's time for a good ole witch hunt while we are dreaming up
total unsupportable nonsense!

Back in the "olden days" the local US gov'ts set up institutions who's
only purpose is the sharing of copyrighted material in the form of
books! You know, now that I have thought about this a little, stopping
gov't sponsed sharing of copyrighted material "can mean much more
revenue now that it did back in the olden days" of free public libraries
for the book publishing industry! LOL!

Some people really do deserve to live in a Big Brother World!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[D.Currie]

So stopping something that's not illegal to do,

Where did I say anything was illegal to do?

will make software

copyright owners more revenue than back in the "olden days?!" LOL!

Seems obvious. If you find a way to stop casual copying in a household, and
somebody wants the same application, game, utility, DVD movie, or whatever
on every computer in the household, you're going to sell more copies. It
doesn't matter if it's illegal or not illegal to make copies, it's a
practical issue. If there's some sort of copy protection in place, whether
it's MSs activation routine or it's something else, many people aren't going
to bother with trying to crack it, they're just going to buy however many
copies they need.

Way back when, people tended to have one computer at home, and weren't as
concerned about having multiple copies of anything, except perhaps for
archive purposes. So the larger number of computers in existence now should
create more sales, if the copy protections schemes are adequate enough to
keep the majority of users from making copies or installing in multiple
computers. It's also a matter of cost. If it's going to take ten hours to
crack a $19.99 piece of software, the only people who are going to bother
are the ones who do it for fun or who have enough time on their hands to
waste. The average consumer is just going to go buy another copy. So more
computers=more sales= more$$ for the copyright holder. It's not a matter of
right or wrong, it's just math.

Even back in the Windows 3.1 days -- and before -- there were copy
protection schemes. None of them were perfect, some of them were annoying,
but they existed back when I was buying games on 5 1/4" floppies. Activation
is less annoying to me than some of the hoops you had to jump through to
install or run some of those old programs. But that's just me.

It's the same with other things that are supposed to be copyrighted. Rather
than someone thinking about whether they're breaking some unenforced law
that they'll never be caught for, they do whatever's easiest. So each of
your kids needs today's newspaper for a school project. Are you going to
photocopy the whole thing, or run to the store and buy a couple extra
copies? It's easier to buy the copies, whether it's technically legal,
illegal, fair use, or otherwise to make copies.

Not one case has software casual copying between individuals that aren't
even in the same has even been brought before a court, let alone
successfully litigated! And now you think it cool outlaw sharing within
the privacy of a household too?! ROFL!

Maybe you weren't responding to me at all, and this is meant for someone
else. Most of my post had to do with the fact that a lot of businesses give
something away until they build a customer base, then they tighten the
reins. I didn't say it was good, bad, or otherwise, just that it's pretty
common, and as a selling technique it works. Otherwise there wouldn't be
people handing out free samples of food at the grocery store or stuffing AOL
disks with 5000 free hours into the Sunday newspaper.

As far as litigation, I doubt it will ever happen unless someone with deep
pockets decides to take MS to court over it. I doubt MS is ever going to go
knocking on people's homes and count their software and take them to court.
It's just not cost- or time-efficient. People who want to
share/distribute/sell copies will continue to do so, and saints will
continue to be perfect. Most folks are somewhere in the middle. It's not
something that keeps me up at night, and I doubt anyone at MS is all that
worried about what home users do either.

Microsoft is having enough fun going after the shops that buy one copy of
WIndows and one copy of Office, and install it on hundreds of computers,
never giving the customer a copy of the software if they need to reinstall.
Those are the guys that need chasing after, IMHO, not because MS doesn't get
their share, but because they're cheating the innocent end-user.

Let me guess, you believe that Iraq had actually had weaponized WMD's
ready to be deploy in the battlefield with less the 20 minutes notice
too!

You know there probably are still subversive Communists in our gov'ts
too, maybe it's time for a good ole witch hunt while we are dreaming up
total unsupportable nonsense!

How you think that relates to what I said, I haven't a clue.

Back in the "olden days" the local US gov'ts set up institutions who's
only purpose is the sharing of copyrighted material in the form of
books! You know, now that I have thought about this a little, stopping
gov't sponsed sharing of copyrighted material "can mean much more
revenue now that it did back in the olden days" of free public libraries
for the book publishing industry! LOL!

And you can borrow and/or rent music, movies, computer games...your point
is?

 

[D.Currie]

Your nonchalance seemed to me to imply

<snip>

It simply doesn't worry me as much as it does you. As with most systems,
there are checks and balances. For one thing, the technology is created by
people, and no sooner is it created than other people figure out a way
around it. There were plenty of ways around the copy protection on the old 5
1/4" disks, and there are ways around activation for XP if that happens to
be your personal goal.

For another thing, there are people who are rabidly against whatever it
might be and people who are just as rabid in the other direction. They fight
it out, some balance is achieved.

It just doesn't happen to be my fight.

 

[Michael Stevens]

<snip>

It simply doesn't worry me as much as it does you. As with most
systems, there are checks and balances. For one thing, the technology
is created by people, and no sooner is it created than other people
figure out a way around it. There were plenty of ways around the copy
protection on the old 5 1/4" disks, and there are ways around
activation for XP if that happens to be your personal goal.

For another thing, there are people who are rabidly against whatever
it might be and people who are just as rabid in the other direction.
They fight it out, some balance is achieved.

It just doesn't happen to be my fight.

Lets watch Kurt dissect your reply line by line and make it totally
different from what you intended it to say.

BTW, did he actually reply to any of your replies or just blur his
conclusion jumping with answers to questions never asked?
Your assessment of PA is very much the same as mine. Anybody that wants to
go to the trouble of breaking the EULA contract can do so and it is not
likely they will be prosecuted, and even as the Goldman's found out after
winning their CIVIL suite against OJ, they haven't received a penny from OJ,
and probably never will. But I hear OJ's lawyers are actively trying to and
unsuccessfully get their fees from OJ.
Civil suites are usually negotiated out of court and do not change rules, so
as far as anybody knows kurt or myself doesn't know if MS or an MS consumer
has brought suit that would define the EULA.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[kurttrail]

D.Currie wrote:

It just doesn't happen to be my fight.

You are a consumer! You are a human being, and your actions, or lack
thereof, does have consequences. But you obviously don't give a sh*t.
And that's why I told you orginally that some people do deserve to live
in a Big Brother World!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Master of Mike's Confusion]

Lets watch Kurt dissect your reply line by line and make it totally
different from what you intended it to say.

Why is what I do so important to you? Ah, that right I'm your "Master!"

BTW, did he actually reply to any of your replies or just blur his
conclusion jumping with answers to questions never asked?

No, I responded to what I felt like responding to, just like D. Currie
did, by
responding to Lorne how stopping casual copy within a home [of course
that's a 'fair use'] gets the copyright owners mo' money. Obviously we
are no longer talking about calling people thieves & pirates without any
legal to back it up.

Some people aren't obsessed with arguing over the form of the argument
to draw attention away from the content of the argument, like you are,
MicroMouse!

Your assessment of PA is very much the same as mine. Anybody that
wants to go to the trouble of breaking the EULA contract can do so
and it is not likely they will be prosecuted,

Not likely because as the law & court opinions stand today, the
corporate copyright owners would lose, and they know it! That's why
they
are lobbying Congress to change those laws, and Court precedents!

and even as the

Goldman's found out after winning their CIVIL suite against OJ, they
haven't received a penny from OJ, and probably never will. But I hear
OJ's lawyers are actively trying to and unsuccessfully get their fees
from OJ.

What this have to do with anything in this thread, I certainly don't
know?

Civil suites are usually negotiated out of court and do not change
rules, so as far as anybody knows kurt or myself doesn't know if MS
or an MS consumer has brought suit that would define the EULA.

That's right, we don't know how many times MS has settled to keep a
judge from deciding all this!

Stop worrying what I do, Mike. You're pathetic attempts to try and trip
me up over the form of my posts, rather than their content, is totally
transparent to any one not MicroBlinded!

--
Peace!
Master of Mike's Confusion, Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

And you have no idea what my actions are or aren't.

Did I say that I did? Just said they have consequences.

Just because I'm
not frothing at the mouth over PA in a newsgroupn doesn't mean much
in terms of what I do in RL.

That right! I just said, "You are a human being, and your actions, or
lack
thereof, does have consequences."

So what's your point?

Obviously? Just because something isn't a hot-button topic for
someone, it doesn't mean that they have no interest in it.

By saying it's not your fight, pretty much said to me you didn't care
one way or another. It seemed pretty obvious to me that you by your
written words that you couldn't give a sh*t. Though I do admit that I
suspect that your claimed lack of concern over PA and other
technological controls, is nothing but a pretense, in order to make your
"apology" for technological controls in our homes sound more innocuous
and reasonable, than they would from someone who is a advocate of them.
Can't prove it, but I do strongly suspect it.

Same with the whole copyright protection / product activation / music
sharing / whatever scenario. Yes, product activation can be a pain in
the arse, but I find it less annoying than some of the older copy
protection schemes. Note: I didn't say *I like it* I said it's less
annoying than others I've encounted. I certainly would be in favor of
letting consumers "legally" have multiple copies for personal use.

It's called 'fair use' and it is already legal!

On
the other hand, I fully understand a copyright holder's desire to
protect his/her work. If copyrights went out the window and there was
no incentive to create copyrightable works, there would be a lot
fewer people writing books, recording music, publishing software.

But why would the copyright go out the window? The EULA doesn't protect
copyright law!

As far as actually making it "legal" to have unlimited use in a home,
I can see why MS wouldn't go that route -- primarily because it would
erode other protections.

How does copyright get eroded by this?

If it can be freely copied in a home, why
not in a small business?

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a"fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

That's how, because for individuals it would be a "fair use," but the
same scenario would not apply for businesses, and this it is protected
under copyright law! No EULA is necessary!

What defines a home? How about the vacation
home, the extended family? Kids in college? Prison? It's *much*
easier to say, "one computer, one license." It's clear, easy,
definable, defendable, not subject to many interpretations.

All they'd have do to is say that the EULA usage terms only apply for
commercial or public use. No big deal!

So they keep the *requirement* but they don't enforce it.

They don't by the legal means by trying to prove it in a real court of
law on the preponderance of the evidence, that is for sure! They just
try to enforce it with their technological kangaroo court of PA!

I'm not saying that this is ideal, or that in my dream world, it's
what I want, or that it's what I like, particularly. It's just that
I can see reasons *why* it's the way it is.

What reasons? All your nonsense about them losing their copyright is
pure fantasy! No book copyright owner has lost his copyright because
they "allow" their book to be in a free public library! Hell, the
copyright owner has absolutely no say whether their book is in any
library or not, to begin with! And even if they put a EULA on the book
to try to stop library lending, the wouldn't have the right to do it
under copyright law!

Your BS is also quite "obvious!"

AND TO REPEAT -- seeing
*why* somebody does something does not consitute endorsement,
agreement, approval, or anything other than the acknowledgement that
it exists that way. As a matter of fact, seeing why things are done a
certain gives you a much better perspective on how things might be
changed.

Yes, but only when your "perspective" isn't clouded by corporate
copyright owner's propaganda!

One reason I can see for MS's EULA the way it is, is that in order to
keep a copyright valid -- not letting the item slip into the public
domain -- the copyright holder has certain responsibilites, and one
of those is to *protect* the copyrighted item.

That's what copyright law & the courts are for! Your don't need a EULA
to protect it! LOL!

MS has chosen
activation as their protection this time around. They pretty much
have to publicly say that they don't allow copying, etc. But
privately they can decide not to break down home user's doors and
audit their software.

ROFL! Your seem to think that the copyright owner is the master in our
homes, if we buy their products! How magnanimous of them not to break
down our doors yet! We should all drop down onto our knees and give
thanks!

I'm perfectly safe. I've got my tin foil hat on! They'll NEVER guess
what I'm thinking.

They don't have to! They have already programmed you!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Michael Stevens]

Why is what I do so important to you? Ah, that right I'm your
"Master!"

It's not, just musing on how you change the content of the argument with
your method of answering the reply. After a few replies in this manner, the
thread is blurred to your liking. LOL

BTW, you didn't disappoint.

<snipped the stuff you answered for D. Currie>
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[kurttrail]

It's not, just musing on how you change the content of the argument
with your method of answering the reply.

LOL! Dissected Line By Line! ROFL!

After a few replies in this
manner, the thread is blurred to your liking. LOL

Just because you have comprehension problems, doesn't mean anything is
really blurred, except in your own diseased skull!

BTW, you didn't disappoint.

Really? Did I "dissect" the post of D. Currie you also replied to "line
by line *and* make it totally different from what [D. Currie] intended
it to say?"

LOL! You're totally delusional in your never-ending quest to try to
one-up me! And over form & "method," rather than the substance of my
opinion, on top of it all! ROFL!

What is also transparent, Mike, is that you're finding it harded and
harder to rationalize away your nonsense to yourself, let alone to the
rest of the group!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Lorne Smith]

It's not, just musing on how you change the content of the argument
with your method of answering the reply.

LOL! Dissected Line By Line! ROFL!

After a few replies in this
manner, the thread is blurred to your liking. LOL

Just because you have comprehension problems, doesn't mean anything is
really blurred, except in your own diseased skull!

BTW, you didn't disappoint.

Really? Did I "dissect" the post of D. Currie you also replied to "line
by line *and* make it totally different from what [D. Currie] intended
it to say?"

LOL! You're totally delusional in your never-ending quest to try to
one-up me! And over form & "method," rather than the substance of my
opinion, on top of it all! ROFL!

What is also transparent, Mike, is that you're finding it harded and
harder to rationalize away your nonsense to yourself, let alone to the
rest of the group!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Come on Kurt...PLEASE don't go back to the name-calling back-biting stuff
Your arguement is valid enough without resorting to that level...

At the end of the end, I think we should all probably agree to disagree on
this highly controversial subject... There's no way we're going to convert
each other...

Lorne

 

[kurttrail]

Come on Kurt...PLEASE don't go back to the name-calling back-biting
stuff

I didn't call him any name, in the last post, just was a little
descriptive about his skull! ;-)

Your arguement is valid enough without resorting to that
level...

At the end of the end, I think we should all probably agree to
disagree on this highly controversial subject... There's no way we're
going to convert each other...

I do agree to disagree, but I still won't just sit idly by while anyone
tries to play silly little USENET games, like attacking how I post my
opinion, rather than the opinion itself, especially by someone who does
it as habitually as Mike. I've recently pointed out to him, when he
contacted me privately, that if he would just stick to his opinion, that
I wouldn't be as adversarial, but not much more than a week later, he
was back to his old silly tricks, so I will continue to public ridicule
him until he stops, or is perceived by all to be a complete
laughingstock! It's quite obvious that trying to reason with him is an
absolute exercise in futility. I've even tried not responding to him in
the past, but he even had to misrepresent why I wasn't responding to
him, so I will respond to him with as much respect that he is worthy of,
absolutely none! I believe in showing my absolute disgust with those
that have proven time and again that that is all that they are worthy
of, and Mike has proven time & again that he is worthy of nothing else!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"