L
Leythos
No, it would not - people pirate shareware even when it costs $1.00.
No, it would not - people pirate shareware even when it costs $1.00.
A
Alias
| In article <[email protected]>, (e-mail address removed)
| says...
| >
| >
| > | If I were Bill Gates I'd fix the OS software problems, sell the OS for
$20
| > | and maybe $40 for the Office apps, and provide free online help to all
new
| > | customers till the next new version.
| > |
| > | Regards
| > | EvolBob
| >
| > That would eliminate piracy in one day.
|
| No, it would not - people pirate shareware even when it costs $1.00.
|
| --
| --
| (e-mail address removed)
OK, it would reduce it substantially and remove the profit motive in one
day. There are always exceptions. Do you think before you post or just
regurgitate knee jerk reactions?
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
| says...
| >
| >
| > | If I were Bill Gates I'd fix the OS software problems, sell the OS for
$20
| > | and maybe $40 for the Office apps, and provide free online help to all
new
| > | customers till the next new version.
| > |
| > | Regards
| > | EvolBob
| >
| > That would eliminate piracy in one day.
|
| No, it would not - people pirate shareware even when it costs $1.00.
|
| --
| --
| (e-mail address removed)
OK, it would reduce it substantially and remove the profit motive in one
day. There are always exceptions. Do you think before you post or just
regurgitate knee jerk reactions?
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
L
Leythos
I think about it just as much, actually more, then you did. Your comment
about it eliminating piracy in one day is completely wrong - in fact,
it's already proven wrong by many examples of cheap software that's
pirated.
Ever look at WinZip, it's free but contains a little register/purchase
nag, I've seen hacks for it that make the nag go away, and this is for a
program that you can use for personal use for free.
Same is true with ANYTHING for sale, if there is a cost associated with
it, it will be pirated.
If Windows XP Professional was sold for $20 by MS, it would still be
pirated, to the same extent, as it is now, by the same people even.
K
Ken Blake
In
No, Winzip is *not* free, it's shareware. As it says on the
Winzip site, "You may try the evaluation version of WinZip 9.0
SR-1 free of charge for a period of 21 days. After the 21-day
evaluation period, a license fee is required for continued use."
Just because they don't disable it after the trial period doesn't
mean it's free.
Leythos said:
No, Winzip is *not* free, it's shareware. As it says on the
Winzip site, "You may try the evaluation version of WinZip 9.0
SR-1 free of charge for a period of 21 days. After the 21-day
evaluation period, a license fee is required for continued use."
Just because they don't disable it after the trial period doesn't
mean it's free.
L
Leythos
You are right, my mistake in trying to find a universal example. But,
the same thought it true, even with the Nag after the trial period, and
with them allowing continued use (effectively making it free), people
still pirate it and provide hacks for it.
So, we're back to even having cheap software pirated.
R
Ron Martell
Alias said:
Wrong. Even $5 shareware is pirated.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Provide a source for that statement.
Thieves already steal anything at any price.
Price is just an excuse thieves use to justify their activities.
Find a product ant any price that is not stolen by someone?
You probably will not find any.
Piracy may or may not be reduced if the price is dropped, but you can not
prove your statement below.
Mighty nice of you to say someone else should lower their price for their
work.
What do you do when someone demands you get paid less simply because someone
with similar thinking to you feels you are paid to much?
In any case, it is Microsoft property and up to the property owner to
determine the price just as you determine the price for whatever you do.
Thieves already steal anything at any price.
Price is just an excuse thieves use to justify their activities.
Find a product ant any price that is not stolen by someone?
You probably will not find any.
Piracy may or may not be reduced if the price is dropped, but you can not
prove your statement below.
Mighty nice of you to say someone else should lower their price for their
work.
What do you do when someone demands you get paid less simply because someone
with similar thinking to you feels you are paid to much?
In any case, it is Microsoft property and up to the property owner to
determine the price just as you determine the price for whatever you do.
D
D.Currie
$20 for the OS and free technical support until the next version comes out?
They'd have to move tech support from India to outer space.
They'd have to move tech support from India to outer space.
A
Alias
| Provide a source for that statement.
It was my opinion. I am the source.
| Thieves already steal anything at any price.
You mean like MS does with their high prices and scammy EULAs?
| Price is just an excuse thieves use to justify their activities.
It's also a reason why a profit motive can be provoked. Ever hear of
"margin"?
| Find a product ant any price that is not stolen by someone?
Of course, everyone's a thief except you, Bruce and MS, right?
| You probably will not find any.
So what?
| Piracy may or may not be reduced if the price is dropped, but you can not
| prove your statement below.
Margin again, son.
| Mighty nice of you to say someone else should lower their price for their
| work.
When they're ripping people off (stealing) with their monopoly and I still
live in a free world, I am free to give my opinion, yes?
| What do you do when someone demands you get paid less simply because
someone
| with similar thinking to you feels you are paid to much?
Actually, due to the wimpie dollar, I have had to lower my prices to remain
competitive but, then again, I don't have a monopoly on the market and I
care what my clients think.
| In any case, it is Microsoft property and up to the property owner to
| determine the price just as you determine the price for whatever you do.
|
| --
| Jupiter Jones [MVP]
| http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
Actually, this isn't so. Any good business should listen to their customers
and act accordingly and if I buy something, it should be *my* property, not
continue to belong to the seller. MS is greedy, period. It is a thieving
crime to force people to activate something they buy and restrict its use. A
thieving crime. Screaming the sky is falling due to piracy is only an excuse
for MS et al to raise their prices, outsource to India and treat their
clients like they are *all* thieves.
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|
|
| > That would eliminate piracy in one day.
| > --
| > Alias
|
|
It was my opinion. I am the source.
| Thieves already steal anything at any price.
You mean like MS does with their high prices and scammy EULAs?
| Price is just an excuse thieves use to justify their activities.
It's also a reason why a profit motive can be provoked. Ever hear of
"margin"?
| Find a product ant any price that is not stolen by someone?
Of course, everyone's a thief except you, Bruce and MS, right?
| You probably will not find any.
So what?
| Piracy may or may not be reduced if the price is dropped, but you can not
| prove your statement below.
Margin again, son.
| Mighty nice of you to say someone else should lower their price for their
| work.
When they're ripping people off (stealing) with their monopoly and I still
live in a free world, I am free to give my opinion, yes?
| What do you do when someone demands you get paid less simply because
someone
| with similar thinking to you feels you are paid to much?
Actually, due to the wimpie dollar, I have had to lower my prices to remain
competitive but, then again, I don't have a monopoly on the market and I
care what my clients think.
| In any case, it is Microsoft property and up to the property owner to
| determine the price just as you determine the price for whatever you do.
|
| --
| Jupiter Jones [MVP]
| http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
Actually, this isn't so. Any good business should listen to their customers
and act accordingly and if I buy something, it should be *my* property, not
continue to belong to the seller. MS is greedy, period. It is a thieving
crime to force people to activate something they buy and restrict its use. A
thieving crime. Screaming the sky is falling due to piracy is only an excuse
for MS et al to raise their prices, outsource to India and treat their
clients like they are *all* thieves.
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|
|
| > That would eliminate piracy in one day.
| > --
| > Alias
|
|
A
Alias
| $20 for the OS and free technical support until the next version comes
out?
| They'd have to move tech support from India to outer space.
Trust me, the outsourcing to India had nothing whatsoever to do with holding
down prices. It had to do with increasing profits.
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|
| | > Hi all.
| > I'm new to this group and after reading the previous 200 posts you have
| > already answered several questions. - thanks.
| > But -
| >
| >>You're almost certainly better off just buying a complete second copy
from
| >>a discount source.
| >
| > - Why would a home user do this?
| > He is the only user. At any one time, only one OS is being used by him,
| > even if both computers are on he can't split into two persons.
| > Like using two pianos, its a stretch
| >
| > What about multitasking on XPSR2 with a high priced graphic card, the
| > latest software and networking, one could have several monitors
accessing
| > different programs on the same computer?
| > No extra license for that is needed.
| >
| > I just tried the Open Office suite and for a free software application -
| > it just blew my socks off!
| > MS has its money grubbing days numbered!
| >
| > I don't support piracy, but to do this one needs to have deprived MS
from
| > something?
| > And for most it is copy the OS to the other machine or not: Buying
| > another copy is NOT a viable option.
| >
| > Selling a computer without an OS is like selling a car without tyres.
| > Again why would a person like myself (financially constipated) go and
| > spend $200 NZ dollars for another OS, for something I already have?
| > Why would anyone?
| > I don't believe anyone does - do you, does M$?
| >
| > If you say yes you mean computers and the Internet are for the rich
only?
| > If I were Bill Gates I'd fix the OS software problems, sell the OS for
$20
| > and maybe $40 for the Office apps, and provide free online help to all
new
| > customers till the next new version. Instead it is the multi-national
| > companies with budgets in the billions that bulk buy 10,000's of
licenses
| > for piddling prices not available to ordinary folk.
| >
| >
| > Regards
| > EvolBob
| >
| > 'A rant a day keeps the ants away.'
| >
| > | >> In | >> No Idea And Stuff <No Idea And (e-mail address removed)> typed:
| >>
| >>> First off, I'm starting to get really disappointed with Microsoft's
| >>> Support, it shouldn't be hard to ask a simple question, but anyway...
| >>
| >>
| >> This is *not* Microsoft's support. This is a peer-to-peer support
| >> newsgroup. We are all just Windows XP users trying to help each other
| >> when we can. Even those of us with "Microsoft MVP" after our names are
| >> not Microsoft employees, just individuals who have been recognized by
| >> Microsoft for providing frequent and accurate help.
| >>
| >>
| >>> I own a computer and have a legal copy of Windows XP Professional and
| >>> I am looking to build another computer. Both computers are for
| >>> personal/home use, and I am the only user, do I need to buy another
| >>> license (OEM version) of Windows XP Pro?
| >>
| >> Yes, you need to buy another, but it doesn't have to be an OEM version.
| >> The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for each
| >> computer.
| >>
| >> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's been in
| >> effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows 3.1. The only
| >> thing new with XP is that there's now an enforcement mechanism.
| >>
| >> If yours is a retail version, not an OEM one, you can buy extra
licenses
| >> (see <http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp>). But
| >> it's not generally a good deal. The problem is that Microsoft sells
| >> additional licenses at only a small savings over the list price. You're
| >> almost certainly better off just buying a complete second copy from a
| >> discount source.
| >>
| >>
| >> --
| >> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| >> Please reply to the newsgroup
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
|
|
out?
| They'd have to move tech support from India to outer space.
Trust me, the outsourcing to India had nothing whatsoever to do with holding
down prices. It had to do with increasing profits.
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|
| | > Hi all.
| > I'm new to this group and after reading the previous 200 posts you have
| > already answered several questions. - thanks.
| > But -
| >
| >>You're almost certainly better off just buying a complete second copy
from
| >>a discount source.
| >
| > - Why would a home user do this?
| > He is the only user. At any one time, only one OS is being used by him,
| > even if both computers are on he can't split into two persons.
| > Like using two pianos, its a stretch
| >
| > What about multitasking on XPSR2 with a high priced graphic card, the
| > latest software and networking, one could have several monitors
accessing
| > different programs on the same computer?
| > No extra license for that is needed.
| >
| > I just tried the Open Office suite and for a free software application -
| > it just blew my socks off!
| > MS has its money grubbing days numbered!
| >
| > I don't support piracy, but to do this one needs to have deprived MS
from
| > something?
| > And for most it is copy the OS to the other machine or not: Buying
| > another copy is NOT a viable option.
| >
| > Selling a computer without an OS is like selling a car without tyres.
| > Again why would a person like myself (financially constipated) go and
| > spend $200 NZ dollars for another OS, for something I already have?
| > Why would anyone?
| > I don't believe anyone does - do you, does M$?
| >
| > If you say yes you mean computers and the Internet are for the rich
only?
| > If I were Bill Gates I'd fix the OS software problems, sell the OS for
$20
| > and maybe $40 for the Office apps, and provide free online help to all
new
| > customers till the next new version. Instead it is the multi-national
| > companies with budgets in the billions that bulk buy 10,000's of
licenses
| > for piddling prices not available to ordinary folk.
| >
| >
| > Regards
| > EvolBob
| >
| > 'A rant a day keeps the ants away.'
| >
| > | >> In | >> No Idea And Stuff <No Idea And (e-mail address removed)> typed:
| >>
| >>> First off, I'm starting to get really disappointed with Microsoft's
| >>> Support, it shouldn't be hard to ask a simple question, but anyway...
| >>
| >>
| >> This is *not* Microsoft's support. This is a peer-to-peer support
| >> newsgroup. We are all just Windows XP users trying to help each other
| >> when we can. Even those of us with "Microsoft MVP" after our names are
| >> not Microsoft employees, just individuals who have been recognized by
| >> Microsoft for providing frequent and accurate help.
| >>
| >>
| >>> I own a computer and have a legal copy of Windows XP Professional and
| >>> I am looking to build another computer. Both computers are for
| >>> personal/home use, and I am the only user, do I need to buy another
| >>> license (OEM version) of Windows XP Pro?
| >>
| >> Yes, you need to buy another, but it doesn't have to be an OEM version.
| >> The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for each
| >> computer.
| >>
| >> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's been in
| >> effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows 3.1. The only
| >> thing new with XP is that there's now an enforcement mechanism.
| >>
| >> If yours is a retail version, not an OEM one, you can buy extra
licenses
| >> (see <http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp>). But
| >> it's not generally a good deal. The problem is that Microsoft sells
| >> additional licenses at only a small savings over the list price. You're
| >> almost certainly better off just buying a complete second copy from a
| >> discount source.
| >>
| >>
| >> --
| >> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| >> Please reply to the newsgroup
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
|
|
G
Greg R
Any software not just Microsoft gives you a license to use.
It still remains thier property.
However, some laws contradict that statement.
Most laws in most States and even other Countries say when your
purchase something it becomes your property. If that the case this
could effect every company.
Contracts can not violate the law.
There are a couple of laws is some countries where the oem rules don't
apply. This part was from a poster.
Another Contradiction is
It says if you don’t agree to eula return to the place of purchase for
full refund? Most stores won’t let you return opened and even some
wont let you return it at all.
However, Microsoft does allow you to return/exchange a new Microsoft
product-non oem if you send it to them within 30 days for returns.
Disclaimer
I am NOT accusing any company of wrong doing. No derogatory
comments are meant by my statement. This was posted for information
purposes only.
Greg R
E
EvolBob
Thanks for the comments Ken.
I'm not going to itemize each point and go through them one at a time.
(don't we all just hate that?)
I also always top post; So give up this complaint before ya start.
Your reply was a bit disappointing and predictable, in its right wing views.
I had hoped for some understanding for those NOT in a situation of choice.
My main point that I failed to convey, was the general agreement from this
NG is that - someone with 2 XP OS on the SAME computer, would need 2
licenses to legally run them. Poppy-cock!
I had hoped you guys had some guts to say it would be a little unreasonable
for MS to prosecute, when one can only use one OS at the time (usually):
Whether or not this is technically a breach of copyright law or not.
In what reality do you live in where the law is always right all the time?
As a police officer Ken, you would still ticket a speeding motorist,
hospital bound with a sick child?
As a lawyer Ken would you defend or prosecute this person?
As a parent Ken, would you report your son/mother/brother to the authorities
as the driver?
My advice to all who for what ever reason have 2 OS on their machine, don't
worry MS will never get you for piracy, as I for one cannot see how they are
suffering any injury from this agreed flagrant violation of the LAW!
On a humorous side note:
The NZ government tired to introduce a new Fart Tax law in late 2003 - they
failed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3529313
Lastly, thanks Alias for the only one with enough brains figure out my
ramblings.
I can't wait for that program to return - Jennifer Garner is so .... u
know - GOOD!
Regards
Evolbob
I'm not going to itemize each point and go through them one at a time.
(don't we all just hate that?)
I also always top post; So give up this complaint before ya start.
Your reply was a bit disappointing and predictable, in its right wing views.
I had hoped for some understanding for those NOT in a situation of choice.
My main point that I failed to convey, was the general agreement from this
NG is that - someone with 2 XP OS on the SAME computer, would need 2
licenses to legally run them. Poppy-cock!
I had hoped you guys had some guts to say it would be a little unreasonable
for MS to prosecute, when one can only use one OS at the time (usually):
Whether or not this is technically a breach of copyright law or not.
In what reality do you live in where the law is always right all the time?
As a police officer Ken, you would still ticket a speeding motorist,
hospital bound with a sick child?
As a lawyer Ken would you defend or prosecute this person?
As a parent Ken, would you report your son/mother/brother to the authorities
as the driver?
My advice to all who for what ever reason have 2 OS on their machine, don't
worry MS will never get you for piracy, as I for one cannot see how they are
suffering any injury from this agreed flagrant violation of the LAW!
On a humorous side note:
The NZ government tired to introduce a new Fart Tax law in late 2003 - they
failed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3529313
Lastly, thanks Alias for the only one with enough brains figure out my
ramblings.
I can't wait for that program to return - Jennifer Garner is so .... u
know - GOOD!
Regards
Evolbob
<snipped>Ken Blake said:
K
Ken Blake
In
You may post any way you choose, and I have no intention of
complaining about it. Although I don't believe in top-posting, I
rarely if ever complain about others doing so.
LOL! You don't know me at all. If you did, you would know that I
am anything but right-wing.
Please reread my message below. As I said there "The question was
about having two computers with Windows XP on both of them." This
thread is *not* about the question of two instances of the same
copy of Windows XP on the same computer, and nowhere did I
address that issue.
As a matter of fact, I've read arguments on both sides of the
"two instances of the same copy of Windows XP on one computer"
question, all from whom I respect. Personally, I find the EULA
confusing on this issue, and I'm not absolutely sure what
Microsoft's official position is, nor do I know how a judge and
jury would rule on this if it ever came to court.
Personally, if I were on a jury that had to rule on this issue, I
think someone would have a hard time convincing me that it was a
license violation to install the same copy twice on a single
computer.
Again, I never addressed that question at all. Whether Microsoft
would prosecute in the "one copy of two computers" situation I
was talking about, or the "two instances of the same copy of
Windows XP on one computer" you want to change the conversation
to, I don't know. Besides, I may be wrong, but to the best of my
knowledge, Microsoft has only gone after corporations for piracy,
and has never prosecuted an individual.
I have never suggested that the law is right all the time. I
don't believe anything close to that. I do, however, believe that
stealing is wrong all the time.
Returning to the topic of this thread, one copy of Windows on
*two* computers, I would love to see Microsoft (and other
software companies) change its licensing rules and make that
legal for home users. It probably wouldn't cost them a gigantic
sum of money, it would give them a great deal of very good
publicity, and it would personally save me money. I think that
the good publicity they would get from making such a change would
probably outweigh any loss of revenue it would cause. If I'm
right, it would be a win-win situation--good for everyone.
But I don't have have Bill Gates's ear and don't get to tell him
what to do. Even though I think they're making a mistake in the
way they license Windows to home users, I respect their right to
make the decision any way they choose to. They get to choose how
they license it; we the users get to choose whether to accept
their products under the terms offered, not to steal it if we
don't like those terms. If we find those terms unacceptable, our
choice is not to buy their products. As I said, there *are* other
choices (Linux, OpenOffice, etc.)
EvolBob said:
You may post any way you choose, and I have no intention of
complaining about it. Although I don't believe in top-posting, I
rarely if ever complain about others doing so.
LOL! You don't know me at all. If you did, you would know that I
am anything but right-wing.
Please reread my message below. As I said there "The question was
about having two computers with Windows XP on both of them." This
thread is *not* about the question of two instances of the same
copy of Windows XP on the same computer, and nowhere did I
address that issue.
As a matter of fact, I've read arguments on both sides of the
"two instances of the same copy of Windows XP on one computer"
question, all from whom I respect. Personally, I find the EULA
confusing on this issue, and I'm not absolutely sure what
Microsoft's official position is, nor do I know how a judge and
jury would rule on this if it ever came to court.
Personally, if I were on a jury that had to rule on this issue, I
think someone would have a hard time convincing me that it was a
license violation to install the same copy twice on a single
computer.
Again, I never addressed that question at all. Whether Microsoft
would prosecute in the "one copy of two computers" situation I
was talking about, or the "two instances of the same copy of
Windows XP on one computer" you want to change the conversation
to, I don't know. Besides, I may be wrong, but to the best of my
knowledge, Microsoft has only gone after corporations for piracy,
and has never prosecuted an individual.
I have never suggested that the law is right all the time. I
don't believe anything close to that. I do, however, believe that
stealing is wrong all the time.
Returning to the topic of this thread, one copy of Windows on
*two* computers, I would love to see Microsoft (and other
software companies) change its licensing rules and make that
legal for home users. It probably wouldn't cost them a gigantic
sum of money, it would give them a great deal of very good
publicity, and it would personally save me money. I think that
the good publicity they would get from making such a change would
probably outweigh any loss of revenue it would cause. If I'm
right, it would be a win-win situation--good for everyone.
But I don't have have Bill Gates's ear and don't get to tell him
what to do. Even though I think they're making a mistake in the
way they license Windows to home users, I respect their right to
make the decision any way they choose to. They get to choose how
they license it; we the users get to choose whether to accept
their products under the terms offered, not to steal it if we
don't like those terms. If we find those terms unacceptable, our
choice is not to buy their products. As I said, there *are* other
choices (Linux, OpenOffice, etc.)
A
Alex Nichol
EvolBob said:
I agree with you, and have made the point into Microsoft at the highest
level. The fact that only one instance can be run at any time
distinguishes from installation on multiple machines. I would suggest
installing once and you then have only one installation. Then clone
that to a second partition and you arguably still have only one
installation