License key for home network

[kurttrail]

And just maybe (as has been with SP1) when he does the next service
pack or major update it won't install on the older activation. What
are you going to tell him then?

That only happens with people using Product IDs that have been released
on the internet. MS has no way to figure out whether XP has been
installed on 2 computers or twice on the same computer that has been
majorly upgraded.

Again you are nothing but FUD. I bet you look under your bed every
night to look for the boogieman.

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

"MS just wants more money than it deserves. Don't give it to them!"
Not for you to decide at all.

You are correct. It is up to the OP, if he thinks MS deserves twice for
the same copyrighted material.

All you can decide is if you are willing to pay the asking price or
not.

I'm not.

Very nice of you to suggest ways for people to violate the EULA they
have already agreed.

It's not a violation of the EULA unless MS proves it in court, and after
over a decade of selling windows to private non-commercial individuals
MS has NEVER proven that installing one copy of XP on two computers is a
violation of the EULA and would be legally enforced in a court of law.

When I do not approve of a price, I do without or go elsewhere.

Did you buy the OS you are using, or is it a free OS that you got with
your MVP suckup status?

You on the other hand suggest violating agreements.

I suggest following one's conscience over the whims of a proven
predatory monopolist, and a proven copyright and patent infringer,
namely Microsoft.

What do you do when someone cheats you or violates an agreement with
you?

If I think a court will enforce it, I sue, and if like MS and their
EULA, I think there is a good chance I'd lose, then I leave well enough
alone and try to FUD people into believing that the agreement is legally
binding.

Encourage them as you do here?

I would practice due diligence.

Or do you defend your property and become a hypocrite?

I blelieve in Fair Use. My copyrighted material is free for all private
non-commercial use. If I find out it is being used for commercial
purposes, then I'd sue.

--
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"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"I blelieve in Fair Use. My copyrighted material is free for all private
non-commercial use. If I find out it is being used for commercial purposes,
then I'd sue."
Thus you ask others to do for yourself what you also ask others to deny
Microsoft and any other seller that has terms you do not like.
Interesting double standard.

As for FUD, if you do not like FUD why do you continuously bring up
irrelevant points such as the source for software.
All my software is properly used and licensed now as it was before I was an
MVP.
Of course since you lack facts to support your point, it is understandable
your need to bring up such irrelevant points.
Your accusations against Microsoft are more of your own FUD.
For disliking FUD, you seem to pass enough around.
But then to abide by the ideas you expect of others does not fit Kurt's
character.
More double standards of Kurt's.

 

[kurttrail]

"I blelieve in Fair Use. My copyrighted material is free for all
private non-commercial use. If I find out it is being used for
commercial purposes, then I'd sue."
Thus you ask others to do for yourself what you also ask others to
deny Microsoft and any other seller that has terms you do not like.
Interesting double standard.

LOL! What the OP wants to do is a "Fair Use" in my book, Juppy. Again,
"My copyrighted material is free for all private non-commercial use."

Where did the OP mention that he was using the software for commercial
use?

You are so disingenuous that you actually think I am the hypocrite!
Did you pay for the OS you are using on your own computer?

As for FUD, if you do not like FUD why do you continuously bring up
irrelevant points such as the source for software.
All my software is properly used and licensed now as it was before I
was an MVP.

Except now you don't pay for it, unless you count your sycophantic
postings of MicroFUD.

Of course since you lack facts to support your point, it is
understandable your need to bring up such irrelevant points.

Seems like I touched a nerve! Ouch! ;-)

Your accusations against Microsoft are more of your own FUD.

MS is a proven predatory monopoly, and also a proven copyright and
patent infringer, while no private non-commercial individual has EVER
been legally found to have infringed or violated a EULA for installing
one copy of software on more than one computer.

That not FUD, Just the facts, Juppy!

For disliking FUD, you seem to pass enough around.

Prove what I say is FUD.

But then to abide by the ideas you expect of others does not fit
Kurt's character.
More double standards of Kurt's.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Attack me instead of try and disprove what I have
written. Such an old USENET trick. It really is sad!

--
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"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

You have no clue what I pay for as is obvious by your statement made
displaying your ignorance:
"Except now you don't pay for it, unless you count your sycophantic postings
of MicroFUD"
Can you tell me the relevancy of the source for my software?
It is all legal and follows the appropriate EULA, nothing more is relevant.
You already know more than is necessary and that is all is properly used and
licensed IAW the EULA BEFORE and after I became a MVP.
If you can give a legitimate reason, I will tell all you ask in detail.
But until then, it is just something you are attempting to use to blur the
facts you lack.
Otherwise you would not bring up irrelevant points.

"Blah, Blah, Blah. Attack me instead of try and disprove what I have
written. Such an old USENET trick. It really is sad!"
Why is it a trick to point out a discrepancy in what you do and what you
think other software manufactures do?
No trick but it does demonstrate how you have double standards with software
licensing, You do not dispute it...because it is the truth?
Interesting on what you agree makes you $ but what you disagree would costs
you $.

 

[Rock]

The only way MS has to figure out that it has been installed on more
than one computer is if you tell them. Just go through the activation
wizard again, choose the phone option to activate it, and if you are
asked why you have to reactivate, just tell them that you just upgraded
components of the same computer it was originally installed on.

MS just wants more money than it deserves. Don't give it to them!

Yes, give up your integrity and lie. That's the way to do things.

 

[Plato]

break. Two licenses for a home network of two machines. Is this the only
way that I can have XP on both machines?

If you can afford two pcs than you can afford to pay for your OSs.

 

[Alias]

Are you new to computers and software? What company permits multiple
users
to install the same commercial software on multiple machines for
simultaneous use without requiring additional licenses?

I can't think of any.

carl <<<<<<

The fact that other companies followed MS example doesn't make it not a
scam. That's like saying it's OK to commit murder because your brother
killed someone. No, I am not new to computers and am well aware of the
scam
and have been for years.
--

You've got the cart before the horse. Who set the tone in Operating System
licensing, IBM and Apple or Microsoft? You are correct in that IBM and
Apple, despite being in the game long before Microsoft, have made moves
towards Microsoft's more lenient licensing. However, IBM is far from
reformed, but at least they'll allow you to "lease" a license for OS/2 Warp
for an entire year now, rather than by the month.

Who set the tone for licensing of productivity software? Lotus and
WordPerfect or Microsoft? Again, Microsoft has the more forgiving license
by permitting a single Office license to be applied to an installation on a
Desktop and a Laptop for the same user (or at least they did in the past).

And as far as Volume Licensing goes, Microsoft beats them all, hands down.
Microsoft offers "flex" volume licensing. In other words, you could
purchase 15 flex license points, and use those to license an OS and Office
for five users, perhaps Project for two users, Frontpage for two users, and
Visio for one user. It's pretty darn good for small businesses and startups
that tend to grow and morph.

carl

I don't care WHO started it; it's still a scam. First you say it's OK
because others are doing it and now you are saying it's OK because others
did it first. Sheesh!

 

[Alias]

When I do not approve of a price, I do without or go elsewhere.

Did you buy the OS you are using, or is it a free OS that you got with
your MVP suckup status? <<<<<<

LOL!

 

[Alias]

| kurttrail wrote:
|
| > quadd wrote:
| >
| >>Two weeks ago I purchased XP Professional Upgrade ( from Win98)and
| >>have installed and activated on my machine. I installed on my wife's
| >>machine today. So now I am being told that I need to buy another
| >>license at the same price I paid less the cost of the CD... just for
| >>her. Wow,that is an expensive alternative. I understand the problem
| >>with piracy but gimme a break. Two licenses for a home network of
| >>two machines. Is this the only way that I can have XP on both
| >>machines?
| >
| >
| > The only way MS has to figure out that it has been installed on more
| > than one computer is if you tell them. Just go through the activation
| > wizard again, choose the phone option to activate it, and if you are
| > asked why you have to reactivate, just tell them that you just upgraded
| > components of the same computer it was originally installed on.
| >
| > MS just wants more money than it deserves. Don't give it to them!
| >
|
| Yes, give up your integrity and lie. That's the way to do things.

You've never lied? Sometimes lies are necessary and it has nothing to do
with integrity.

 

[Alias]

| =?Utf-8?B?cXVhZGQ=?= wrote:
| >
| > break. Two licenses for a home network of two machines. Is this the
only
| > way that I can have XP on both machines?
|
| If you can afford two pcs than you can afford to pay for your OSs.

Perhaps he can afford 100 OSs but that doesn't make it right for MS to
insist on buying something twice.

 

[Alex Nichol]

Two weeks ago I purchased XP Professional Upgrade ( from Win98)and have
installed and activated on my machine. I installed on my wife's machine
today. So now I am being told that I need to buy another license at the same
price I paid less the cost of the CD... just for her. Wow,that is an
expensive alternative. I understand the problem with piracy but gimme a
break. Two licenses for a home network of two machines.

Those are the terms in which Microsoft has always licensed windows. One
may well feel that a second copy, needing only a key and no support
should be cheaper (and I have said so to their top level) but as it
stands, you *can* get a small discount, but it is usually cheaper to go
to a discount store

 

[kurttrail]

You have no clue what I pay for as is obvious by your statement made
displaying your ignorance:
"Except now you don't pay for it, unless you count your sycophantic
postings of MicroFUD"
Can you tell me the relevancy of the source for my software?
It is all legal and follows the appropriate EULA, nothing more is
relevant. You already know more than is necessary and that is all is
properly used and licensed IAW the EULA BEFORE and after I became a
MVP. If you can give a legitimate reason, I will tell all you ask in
detail. But until then, it is just something you are attempting to use
to
blur the facts you lack.
Otherwise you would not bring up irrelevant points.

Notice he doesn't say he PAID for the OS he uses! Yet he wants
everybody else to pay for the same copyrighted material over and over
again!

"Blah, Blah, Blah. Attack me instead of try and disprove what I have
written. Such an old USENET trick. It really is sad!"
Why is it a trick to point out a discrepancy in what you do and what
you think other software manufactures do?
No trick but it does demonstrate how you have double standards with
software licensing, You do not dispute it...because it is the truth?
Interesting on what you agree makes you $ but what you disagree would
costs you $.

Yeah the discrepancy in what I do and software manufacturers do is I
RESPECT AN INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO "FAIR USE," AND THEY DON'T!

And I repeat what I said earlier, "My copyrighted material is *FREE* for
all private non-commercial use."

That is the discrepancy between me and MS, I give it away for *FREE* for
personal non-commercial use, and ONLY expect to be paid when it is used
for commercial purposes. Give me a call when MS gives Windows away for
free to people for private non-commercial use!

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

Yes, give up your integrity and lie. That's the way to do things.

Why not? MS lies that people don't have "Fair Use" rights to the
software that was legally sold to them. MS wraps its ass up in all the
protection that copyright law gives them in their EULA, but tries to
rewrite copyright law when it comes to "fair use."

--
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"

 

[Vagabond Software]

You've got the cart before the horse. Who set the tone in Operating System
licensing, IBM and Apple or Microsoft? You are correct in that IBM and
Apple, despite being in the game long before Microsoft, have made moves
towards Microsoft's more lenient licensing. However, IBM is far from
reformed, but at least they'll allow you to "lease" a license for OS/2 Warp
for an entire year now, rather than by the month.

Who set the tone for licensing of productivity software? Lotus and
WordPerfect or Microsoft? Again, Microsoft has the more forgiving license
by permitting a single Office license to be applied to an installation on a
Desktop and a Laptop for the same user (or at least they did in the past).

And as far as Volume Licensing goes, Microsoft beats them all, hands down.
Microsoft offers "flex" volume licensing. In other words, you could
purchase 15 flex license points, and use those to license an OS and Office
for five users, perhaps Project for two users, Frontpage for two users, and
Visio for one user. It's pretty darn good for small businesses and startups
that tend to grow and morph.

carl

I don't care WHO started it; it's still a scam. First you say it's OK
because others are doing it and now you are saying it's OK because others
did it first. Sheesh!
--

No, I say it's OK because one license per user is the only thing that makes sense for most commercial software products. If I quit my job and take out a second mortgage on my house to write a killer application that I want to sell as a product, I don't want to go broke after selling only one copy because it would be a "scam" to suggest that everyone who uses my software actually pay the asking price for it!

carl

 

[Alias]

You've got the cart before the horse. Who set the tone in Operating
System
licensing, IBM and Apple or Microsoft? You are correct in that IBM and
Apple, despite being in the game long before Microsoft, have made moves
towards Microsoft's more lenient licensing. However, IBM is far from
reformed, but at least they'll allow you to "lease" a license for OS/2
Warp
for an entire year now, rather than by the month.

Who set the tone for licensing of productivity software? Lotus and
WordPerfect or Microsoft? Again, Microsoft has the more forgiving license
by permitting a single Office license to be applied to an installation on
a
Desktop and a Laptop for the same user (or at least they did in the past).

And as far as Volume Licensing goes, Microsoft beats them all, hands down.
Microsoft offers "flex" volume licensing. In other words, you could
purchase 15 flex license points, and use those to license an OS and Office
for five users, perhaps Project for two users, Frontpage for two users,
and
Visio for one user. It's pretty darn good for small businesses and
startups
that tend to grow and morph.

carl

I don't care WHO started it; it's still a scam. First you say it's OK
because others are doing it and now you are saying it's OK because others
did it first. Sheesh!
--

No, I say it's OK because one license per user is the only thing that makes
sense for most commercial software products. If I quit my job and take out
a second mortgage on my house to write a killer application that I want to
sell as a product, I don't want to go broke after selling only one copy
because it would be a "scam" to suggest that everyone who uses my software
actually pay the asking price for it!

carl <<<<<<<<

Are you saying that MS went broke before XP and it's activation scam to back
up its license scam? If you sell software, sell software, not a scam to rent
it. I have all the Tombraider games. None come with activation, product keys
or EULAs and, for some reason, even though I have installed them on three
computers, Eidos, Core et al did quite well with that game. Why is that?

I have the Diablo game and same thing and guess what, the Diablo people are
doing quite well without the scam you are so endeared to.

Also, on ALL the web sites that sell software, there is a button to click on
that says "Buy now". NONE of them say "rent or lease now". Why is that?

 

[kurttrail]

No, I say it's OK because one license per user is the only thing that
makes sense for most commercial software products. If I quit my job
and take out a second mortgage on my house to write a killer
application that I want to sell as a product, I don't want to go
broke after selling only one copy because it would be a "scam" to
suggest that everyone who uses my software actually pay the asking
price for it!

And "fair use" of copyrighted products makes sense for individuals.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

And if an individual is sold a copy of copyrighted software, the
copyright right owner doesn't possess the the right to limit that
indivdual's "fair use" of it. Sell it once, cool.



--
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"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

As a troll you attempt to divert with irrelevant facts.
Fact: All OSs on my computers are properly installed and licensed as has
already been stated.

The discrepancy is not that Microsoft wants to be paid and you do not.
The discrepancy is you want to be paid under circumstances you determine but
deny Microsoft the same determination.

The cost is not relevant at all in this thread.
No one but you is bringing up cost.
I have answered the question more than necessary and more than you deserve.

But also as a troll you have failed as you so often do when the facts are
against you and FUD is your only option.

Are you a troll, or just acting like one? Never mind, don't answer unless
you want to feed your ego.
Good bye Kurt

 

[kurttrail]

As a troll you attempt to divert with irrelevant facts.
Fact: All OSs on my computers are properly installed and licensed as
has already been stated.

As a Microtroll, you distort what I have said. I never said that your
OSs aren't licensed.

The discrepancy is not that Microsoft wants to be paid and you do not.
The discrepancy is you want to be paid under circumstances you
determine but deny Microsoft the same determination.

Not at all. I follow copyright laws for "fair use," MS does not.

The cost is not relevant at all in this thread.
No one but you is bringing up cost.
I have answered the question more than necessary and more than you
deserve.

However you failed to say that you PAID for your OS. Why hide?
Ashamed?

But also as a troll you have failed as you so often do when the facts
are against you and FUD is your only option.

You have yet to show one fact. Typical MicroTroll.

Are you a troll, or just acting like one? Never mind, don't answer
unless you want to feed your ego.
Good bye Kurt

See ya', Juppy, the MicroTroll.

--
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"

 

[Vagabond Software]

And "fair use" of copyrighted products makes sense for individuals.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

And if an individual is sold a copy of copyrighted software, the
copyright right owner doesn't possess the the right to limit that
indivdual's "fair use" of it. Sell it once, cool.



--

"Fair use" doesn't even come close to being defensible. Here are a few quotes for you:

"The problem with the fair use of software stems in part from the fact that users probably do not copy software programs to gain access to the ideas expressed in them (except for reverse engineering), but rather, to gain the economic benefit of what they can do as functional computer programs. In this light, copying an entire program for personal use in lieu of purchasing the program seems entirely indefensible as a fair use."

"Making copies of copyrighted materials is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. What you have purchased is the right to use a single copy of software, not the copyright itself."

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/mono2.htm

Look, just admit that you don't want to pay for your preferred software and rather than switch to free or cheaper software, like SolarisX86 or Linux, you would rather steal Microsoft's superior product. I don't care. It's not my job to enforce their copyright. My only responsibility is to abide by it. ;-)

carl