Michael said:
Don't Know Kelly, do you have kurttrail blocked? LOL I don't like it
when good information is ragged on, especially when it comes from the
likes of kurt. He has a vendetta out for Carey and looks for anything
to attack his credibility.
Carey has probably helped out more users with real legitimate
information in these newsgroups than kurt has steered to his ego
driven grey area unproven and opionated web page.
LOL
Only you could try to find a way to say that "You cannot make one," is good
information, as you just can't stand it when I right. [Which would be just
about every encounter we've ever had.]
Keep laughing at yourself, because I'm laughing at you too!
The Supreme Court said, "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
a 'fair use'; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
such a use."
When you can find a legal precedent that supersedes the Supreme Court,
allowing a copyright owner to gain possession of an individual's "fair use"
reproduction of a copyrighted work though a contract of adhesion, then I'll
shut up, until then it is MS's supposition, that they can gain possession,
through a post-purchase "shrink-wrap license," the exclusive right to an
individual's "fair use" of their copy of copyrighted material, that is that
is biased and unproven. Why? Because if MS disputes that installing a copy
of software on more than one computer isn't a "fair use" the only way for
them to legally prove it would be to sue some individual for copyright
infringement, and convince a judge to agree with them. Which MS hasn't
done, since they sold the first copy of DOS to a private non-commercial
individual.
I have the Supreme Court and Copyright laws on my side, MS only has it's own
words, and those of the colluding member of the BSA, for proof. I have
never even been charged in any Federal Court. MS is a multiple loser in
Federal Court.
If it's a matter of credibility, I use the words of the Supreme Court, while
MS, a habitual corporate wrong-doer, uses it own obviously biased and
self-serving words.
I, like any rational human being, would believe the Supreme Court that "Any
individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use'; the copyright
owner [MS] does not possess the exclusive right to such a use," over MS's
unproven licensing claims to the contrary. And like IBM with SCO's unproven
licensing claims, I'll wait for MS to prove their legally unsubstantiated
licensing claims in a real court of law, before I believe that they have a
right to use a contract of adhesion to strip me of my "fair use" rights as
an individual.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"