Michael said:
kurttrail wrote:
When those words don't take into account the limitations placed on
copyright owners by the US Congress, it's the words on the box that
are suspect in the first place. Those words assume MS has the right
to enforce those words in the privacy & anonymity of my home, which
no copyright owner of any type has that right. No law, nor court
decision has ever upheld any like it!
Nor have they ruled against it. When the consumer has access to
information [prior to the purchase] on the product box. That there
are limitations on the use of the software and a technology is
incorporated into the software to enforce the limitation that insure
they must select the agreement button to continue the install of the
software [selecting the button that you disagree ends the setup], I
would give at least a 50/50 chance of the courts ruling in favor of
the owner of the technology.
Why do you assume Microsoft has no right to enforce the usage of
their product?
Because they have no right to even know who I am. It's a matter of
logic. How can they expect to enforce their "rules" on someone that
has every right to remain absolutely anonymous to MS.
Say I'm gonna license to you the commercial use of my Appalachian
Trail photos. How could I ever enforce the terms of my license, if I
have no expectation of ever knowing who you are?
Do you think MS is even concerned about individuals bent on
defeating the activation process?
No, they are more concerned about the people that they can FUD into
buying more software than they need. MS knew that some consumers have
had difficulty understanding the PA message, "According to our
records, the number of time you can activate Windows with this
product key has been exceeded. Please enter a different product
key." Since there is really no stated limit that XP can be activated
by MS, this message is totally & purposefully deceptive, confusing
people into thinking that they buy a new product key. Did MS change
the wording with SP1, after people post their confusion over this
message for the year prior to SP1's release? No. Why?
The only reason I can think of is that MS wants to keep the ordinary
end user confuse, because that confusion can get MS more money than
clearly stating that all the end user needs to do is phone MS.
Even with your help and
encouragement, "fair use assumptions", piracy, counterfeiting, etc.
is a fraction of the XP installed user base. The activation process I
am sure has fulfilled it's goals, and after monitoring these
newsgroups since XP's release, I have not seen the widespread doom
and gloom of mass failure you and others predicted activation would
cause.
Tell that to those that have experienced PA license check errors.
I see the occasional activation glitch, and curse the extra
hoops I and the rest of the XP consumers are forced to jump through
because of the increasing global piracy of software.
Yet MS sells both Windows & Office to pirate countries with a piracy
rate of over 70% for forty dollars, and here in the US where the
piracy rate is under 25% the Student version of Office is over three
times more. If Windows & Office were $40 bucks each in the US, the
piracy rate for them would be almost non-existent.
You are absolutely right. If you are under the radar and have no need
for direct support from MS or future updates that could be tied to
valid XP activations, it is very unlikely Microsoft will intrude into
or impede the use of your computer.
Microsoft also doesn't have the right to know what you smoke or don't
in your home.
But that's the only way they can ever expect to enforce their
so-called "license" only if they know who bought their "license."
There is no "bait-n-switch " when the consumer has access to the
limitations prior to purchase. Where is the bait and switch?
A "shrinkwrap license" is between manufacturers and consumers when the
consumer need to break his anonymity to get satisfaction from the
manufacturer, due to defect of product. Consumer electronics products
had "shrinkwrap licenses" to protect them from consumers trying to get
them to fix or replace products due to consumer negligence.
A "software license," like a car lease, is between two parties that
know who each other are right from the start of the agreement. MS
tries to make a retail anonymous "shrinkwrap license," into a
"software license," but logic dictates that an actual software
license doesn't really exist, since MS has no right to know who has
purchased this so-called "software license."
What is
so hard to understand about this?
Nothing, what you don't you understand is simply that MS can't enforce
any usage term on people they don't even know have purchase their
retail software to begin with.
And your classification it is even a shrinkwrap license is not
clearly defined in any ruling I can find. It's pretty vague exactly
what classifies a retail software license as shrinkwrap.
That's because their is no such thing as a "retail software license,"
only "retail shrinkwrap licenses," which is any agreement that is
hidden inside of the retail shrinkwrap packaging of any retail
product.
"