licensing

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Until the courts do rule otherwise, the EULA is still a binding
contract.

And a lack of integrity is a lack of integrity; regardless of how
large or small the value of the property stolen, or the relative
impact of the lie told. Modern society is on a down-ward spiral
towards chaos, largely because of such "relativity of morals" as you
and so many others espouse.

Oh, and by what stretch of the imagination did you apply the exact
same copyright rules for books, CDs, and DVDs to computer software?
Have you been eating the same mushrooms as the group's resident troll,
Kurttrail? You're sounding just like him.

Just once, I wish all of you EULA-whiners would put your money
where your mouths are and directly challenge Microsoft's licensing
practices in court. Or does the fact that several state Attorneys
General and even the federal Department of Justice didn't even
consider the matter worth raising during their recent legal attacks
against Microsoft cause second thoughts?


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

Did you drop acid this morning or something? Usually your EULA-FUD posts
are rather benign, but this one's downright venomous. As members of a
shared household, the hypothetical Kathy's children have, more or less,
equal rights to fairly use copies of copyrighted works that are the
Kathy's property. I.e. Kathy doesn't need to buy separate copies of
DVDs, CDs, or books for each of her children. The open question is
whether making a second installation would qualify as a "fair use" under
US copyright law, thus beyond Microsoft's ability to control.

I'd love to see the "one computer - one copy" restriction ruled
unenforceable against private, noncommercial use just to see your
reaction, I must admit .

http://24.138.1.228:2655/

 

[Box134]

Binding.... but unenforceable.

 

[kurttrail]

Greetings --

Until the courts do rule otherwise, the EULA is still a binding
contract.

A contract after the fact of purchase. Shrinkwrap licenses were meant
to define the relationship between consumer & manufacturer in regards to
warrantee terms. Software licenses are pre-purchase agreements that
define the terms of the license. Not one of the bait-n-switch EULA
usage terms that MS & many other retail software manufacturers force
consumers to accept after purchase have never been found to binding on
any private US citizen in any US court. Your assumption that a court
would find that post-purchase usage terms are binding on private
individuals is a sheer fantasy that is totally legally unsupportable!
That you continue to spread this type of obvious unsupportable FUD is
totally lacking in integrity!

And a lack of integrity is a lack of integrity; regardless of how
large or small the value of the property stolen, or the relative
impact of the lie told.

Contracts are legally broken every day. There is nothing lacking in
integrity about breaking a contract, and there is no US law that
prohibits anyone from breaking a contract, in and of itself. What would
be lacking in integrity would be abiding by contract terms you think are
unconscionable and/or break the law.

Modern society is on a down-ward spiral
towards chaos, largely because of such "relativity of morals" as you
and so many others espouse.

Please prove where one private US citizen has been even charged with,
let alone been convicted of, anything like theft, copyright
infringement, or breaking a contract, for breaking any usage terms in a
post-purchase retail shrinkwrap license! You are so full of sh*t!

Downward spiral! It's cause by fundamentalist thinking that everything
is black & white, damn the reality of grayscale & colors, and wanting to
impose this black & white moral view on everybody!

Morals are totally relative, practically by definition! Or do you just
think everyone should hold you ideal of what is moral? You're a total
MicroFundamentalist!

Oh, and by what stretch of the imagination did you apply the exact
same copyright rules for books, CDs, and DVDs to computer software?

Because it's comparing things that are alike, all are Copyrighted
Material, unlike you MicroMorons that try to equate it to *real*
"*Property*," like TV's and Automobiles.

Have you been eating the same mushrooms as the group's resident troll,
Kurttrail?

I'd rather be known as a troll, than a douchebag spreader of FUD!

You're sounding just like him.

How the f*ck would you know, since you've had my posts blocked for over
a year? [I only reply to Bruce to point out his BS to the open-minded
lurkers that read this group.]

Just once, I wish all of you EULA-whiners would put your money
where your mouths are and directly challenge Microsoft's licensing
practices in court.

That's not how it works. It's up to the party offering the contract to
sue those that accept and later break it. One does not sue to break a
contract, one just breaks it, then it's incumbent on the aggrieved party
to sue to try to get a court to enforce the contract. MS has never
pursued one individual that it has known that has broken their one
computer term in over a decade. Over two years ago I admitted in the XP
PA preview group, read by MS employees, that I knowingly broke it.
Since MS's has clearly not sought any legal means to enforce it usage
terms, MS might lose just for how long they abandoned enforcing those
terms. I believe the Statute of Limitations is up on MS ever pursuing
me for my mea culpa.

So when MS get the balls to actually try to legally enforce their EULA
usage terms on an individual, let us all know. Until then, consumers
have every legal right to break any contract term that they think is not
legally enforceable, especially one that's has never been back up in
court for over a decade!

Or does the fact that several state Attorneys
General and even the federal Department of Justice didn't even
consider the matter worth raising during their recent legal attacks
against Microsoft cause second thoughts?

Because the fix was in. Hell, MS got away with only hiding it's bundled
middleware. The Anti-Trust case had very little to do with MS's actions
that were anti-consumer, but was mainly focused on their
anti-competition actions.

"Legal attacks against Microsoft?" Man, you have totally lost it! What
are you and Bill Gates the last 2 people on the planet that think MS
was, and continues to be, unjustly accused?

You do know that the Sun doesn't revolve around Redmond, right?

--
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!"

 

[Michael Stevens]

A contract after the fact of purchase.

The retail box states very clearly on the OUTSIDE of the box, accessible
before purchase, that the license is for use on ONE [1] computer.

To quote the text printed on the OUTSIDE of the retail XP box.

"The product uses technological measures for copy protection-you will not be
able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the product
activation procedures. Product activation procedures and Microsoft's privacy
statements will be described during the launch of the product.
For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license
terms), You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use
this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you
should promptly return the product for refund."

How is this after the fact of purchase? Could it be mental incompetence?
Denial of stated limitations? Ignorance? Divine rights? Negligence?
Microsoft Greed? How do you justify "after the fact of purchase" when it is
stated on the box prior to purchase; the limitation for use on one [1]
computer?

--

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

--

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]

A contract after the fact of purchase.

The retail box states very clearly on the OUTSIDE of the box,
accessible before purchase, that the license is for use on ONE [1]
computer.

Doesn't it say something like "intended" for use on one computer.

To quote the text printed on the OUTSIDE of the retail XP box.

And can my grandmother read it without her reading glasses? Hell, can
I?

"The product uses technological measures for copy protection-you will
not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the
product activation procedures. Product activation procedures and
Microsoft's privacy statements will be described during the launch of
the product.
For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for
license terms), You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before
you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the
License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for refund."

Most retailers won't accept returns of open software, and figuring out
how to send it back to MS isn't all that easy, and if you do figure it
out, you don't get a full refund.

How is this after the fact of purchase?

Because that's not the agreement you actually accept during the
installation process. Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a
MicroMoron in this newsgroup?

Could it be mental
incompetence?

No, more like uncontrollable greed!

Denial of stated limitations?

No, it a denial of the limitations placed by Congress on Copyright
Owners.

Ignorance? Divine rights?
Negligence? Microsoft Greed? How do you justify "after the fact of
purchase" when it is stated on the box prior to purchase; the
limitation for use on one [1] computer?

Do you accept the summary on the box, or the one hidden in the
installation process? Or MS post-EULA policies, subject to change at MS
whim, that are totally outside of any agreement?

How do you justify saying that the EULA acceptance happens before
purchase?

You do remember that most of the tobacco companies lost, despite the
cancer warnings that were mandated by the Federal Gov't?

MS's intentions, and their copy protection doesn't give them rights to
limit an individual from 'fairly using' their legally purchase
copyrighted material in the privacy of their own homes, and there is no
legal precedent to suggests otherwise. Even the DMCA protects our
rights to "fair use." So just because to self-interested predatory
monopoly writes something on the outside of their box, or in a
shrinkwrap license, doesn't mean it is legally enforceable on
individuals in the privacy of their own home. Or did Congress pass a
law that gives copyright owners the right to know & control our use of
our legally purchased software in the privacy of our homes, while I was
away on vacation?

And after over a decade on knowing that these shrinkwrap license terms
are being broken, but never trying to enforce that terms legally, in a
court of law, MS has effectively abandoned those usage terms!

To the open-minded people of this group:

So to this MS-SOB, accepting MS EULA happens when reading MS's summary
on the box prior to purchase! ROFL! Totally delusional!

And of course he ignored the fact that it quite legal to break any
contract, unless the other party wants to bring it to court to try to
get them to redress the situation. That a shrinkwrap license has never
been found in any US court of law to be a valid "software license." And
can't prove that even one private US individual has been charged with,
let alone convicted of, anything in regards to breaking the usage terms
of any shrinkwrap license ever.

I back up my opinions with laws, and court decisions, [see
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/] can anyone of the MicroZealots do the
same to back up their opinion that MS has the right to know and control
how you use MS software in the privacy of your home?

--
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!"

 

[David]

I don't want to get into copyright law here, as I have my own opinion
of the eula and its so called "contract" status(and it's close to
kurts), but here in the US we have the 1st amendment that gives Kurt
the right to advise people and to say whatever he wants. Screw the 1st
admendment, but don't you dare break that eula. Hmmmmm.......

The 1st Admendment does NOT mean you can encourage people to into
possiablyillegal acts. The 1st, nor any other Conststitional Adenedment
is an Absolute Right. Saying "I think the EULA is wrong and you can
install XP on more then one computer" is compeletly different then saying
" The EULA is wrong and you can install XP on more then one computer".
The first is an opinion and coverd by the 1st Admendment. The second is
"statement of fact" whcih Kustail is not qualified to make ( or at least,
he has not givin us any reason to believe he might have a law degree ).


--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[kurttrail]

The 1st Admendment does NOT mean you can encourage people to into
possiablyillegal acts. The 1st, nor any other Conststitional
Adenedment is an Absolute Right. Saying "I think the EULA is wrong
and you can install XP on more then one computer" is compeletly
different then saying " The EULA is wrong and you can install XP on
more then one computer". The first is an opinion and coverd by the
1st Admendment. The second is "statement of fact" whcih Kustail is
not qualified to make ( or at least, he has not givin us any reason
to believe he might have a law degree ).

The second is a statement that I have never said. ROFL!

--
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!"

 

[purplehaz]

The 1st Admendment does NOT mean you can encourage people to into
possiablyillegal acts. The 1st, nor any other Conststitional Adenedment
is an Absolute Right. Saying "I think the EULA is wrong and you can
install XP on more then one computer" is compeletly different then saying
" The EULA is wrong and you can install XP on more then one computer".
The first is an opinion and coverd by the 1st Admendment. The second is
"statement of fact" whcih Kustail is not qualified to make ( or at least,
he has not givin us any reason to believe he might have a law degree ).

Did you ever even actually read his faq? I don't think anywhere he says go
ahead and install it on multiple computers, he just says it may be possible
here's some info on why. Just like I could put up a website showing how to
make bombs as long as I don't tell you to actually build one and blow
something up.

 

[Michael Stevens]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

Greetings --

Until the courts do rule otherwise, the EULA is still a binding
contract.

A contract after the fact of purchase.

The retail box states very clearly on the OUTSIDE of the box,
accessible before purchase, that the license is for use on ONE [1]
computer.

Doesn't it say something like "intended" for use on one computer.
NO!

To quote the text printed on the OUTSIDE of the retail XP box.

And can my grandmother read it without her reading glasses? Hell, can
I?

Yes, it is normal print. If your gradnmother or you can't read it, you both
need glasses. It's newsprint size.

Most retailers won't accept returns of open software, and figuring out
how to send it back to MS isn't all that easy, and if you do figure it
out, you don't get a full refund.

If the person reads it before purchasing, there is no refund necessary. If a
person is too stupid to read what they are purchasing it is their fault and
should accept some responsibility.

Because that's not the agreement you actually accept during the
installation process. Are you really that stupid, or do you just
play a MicroMoron in this newsgroup?

Are you so stupid to realize they shouldn't purchase it in the first place?



The rest is your tunnel vision agenda.
You ignored and blurred the question, you didn't address it.

--

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]

kurttrail wrote:
Bruce Chambers wrote:

Greetings --

Until the courts do rule otherwise, the EULA is still a
binding contract.

A contract after the fact of purchase.

The retail box states very clearly on the OUTSIDE of the box,
accessible before purchase, that the license is for use on ONE [1]
computer.

Doesn't it say something like "intended" for use on one computer.
NO!

To quote the text printed on the OUTSIDE of the retail XP box.

And can my grandmother read it without her reading glasses? Hell,
can
I?

Yes, it is normal print. If your gradnmother or you can't read it,
you both need glasses. It's newsprint size.
Bullsh*t.

Most retailers won't accept returns of open software, and figuring
out how to send it back to MS isn't all that easy, and if you do
figure it out, you don't get a full refund.

If the person reads it before purchasing, there is no refund
necessary. If a person is too stupid to read what they are purchasing
it is their fault and should accept some responsibility.

Because that's not the agreement you actually accept during the
installation process. Are you really that stupid, or do you just
play a MicroMoron in this newsgroup?

Are you so stupid to realize they shouldn't purchase it in the first
place?

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!

The rest is your tunnel vision agenda.
You ignored and blurred the question, you didn't address it.

Except that it was all a part of the post you responded to, but ignored
in your reply about the sanctity of what's written on the box. So how
is reading MS's pipe dreams on the side of their box, accepting the EULA
before for the fact of sale? MS has no right to know what I do in my
home, and they can write anything they want on the side of the box, but
that doesn't give them the right to even know I bought MS software, let
alone gives them the right to try to legally bait-n-switch their
"shrinkwrap license" into a "software license" after the fact of the
sale of the copy of software.

--
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]

Did you ever even actually read his faq? I don't think anywhere he
says go ahead and install it on multiple computers, he just says it
may be possible here's some info on why. Just like I could put up a
website showing how to make bombs as long as I don't tell you to
actually build one and blow something up.

LOL! I really don't think I care for you analogy all that much!

How about putting up a site that shows how to build a better bong, as
long as you don't tell people to use it to smoke marijuana. While still
not a perfect analogy, as breaking a contract isn't analogous to
criminal activity, like advocating violence or the possession of
marijuana, I would be feel much more comfortable with the marijuana
analogy.

Sh*t! I missed 4:20!

--
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!"

 

[purplehaz]

LOL! I really don't think I care for you analogy all that much!

How about putting up a site that shows how to build a better bong, as
long as you don't tell people to use it to smoke marijuana. While still
not a perfect analogy, as breaking a contract isn't analogous to
criminal activity, like advocating violence or the possession of
marijuana, I would be feel much more comfortable with the marijuana
analogy.

Sh*t! I missed 4:20!

LOL -- that's all I could think of for an analogy at that time. I like yours
better. But you know what I was getting at, that you can put that info on a
website if you want, it IS your right. BTW - I get to celebrate 4:20
everyday after work. There's a radio station here that at 4:20pm the dj
comes on and says: "it's 4:20 spark 'em if you got 'em", then he plays a
bong hit sound. )

 

[Ian Merrithew]

Until the courts do rule otherwise, the EULA is still a binding
contract.

But if the contract is broken, the terms can only be enforced if the
aggrieved party (MS) launches a civil action against the one who broke
it. Otherwise the contract, or at least the broken term, effectively
becomes void.

Never mind that the owner of a copy of software has a "fair use" right to
access his copy of the software *regardless* of any additional licensing
terms. Whether a second installation would be a "fair use" is an open
question.

Modern society is on a down-ward spiral
towards chaos, largely because of such "relativity of morals" as you
and so many others espouse.

Where have I espoused "relative morals"? Now you're just resorting to
insults instead of rebutting my points.

Oh, and by what stretch of the imagination did you apply the exact
same copyright rules for books, CDs, and DVDs to computer software?

Earth to Bruce -- it's an analogy. A very appropriate analogy, far more
so than the idiotic, "Can you take two loaves of bread from the store if
you only pay for one?" that you've often trotted out. If a music CD came
with a license that stated, "For use on a single stereo only," what do
you think the general public reaction would be to being told they have to
buy "X" copies of a CD if they own "X" stereos? What do you think the
likelihood of a judge holding that term to be enforceable against a
citizen for private, noncommercial use be?

What reason should that analogy *not* apply to software, another
copyrighted work?

Have you been eating the same mushrooms as the group's resident troll,
Kurttrail? You're sounding just like him.

I thank you for the compliment . Kurttrail, despite most of this
group's poisonous attitude towards him, stays very close to factual
information and, unless provoked, rarely seems to resort to personal
attacks. Heck, his threads make this NG worth reading .

Or does the fact that several state Attorneys
General and even the federal Department of Justice didn't even
consider the matter worth raising during their recent legal attacks
against Microsoft cause second thoughts?

Yes, because those anti-trust cases were always about end-user licenses.
Come on now. Ruthlessly, illegally attempting to crush competitors and
attempting to form one or more functioning monopolies were a little
higher on the agenda.

 

[Michael Stevens]

Michael Stevens wrote:

kurttrail wrote:
Bruce Chambers wrote:

Greetings --

Until the courts do rule otherwise, the EULA is still a
binding contract.

A contract after the fact of purchase.

The retail box states very clearly on the OUTSIDE of the box,
accessible before purchase, that the license is for use on ONE [1]
computer.

Doesn't it say something like "intended" for use on one computer.
NO!

To quote the text printed on the OUTSIDE of the retail XP box.

And can my grandmother read it without her reading glasses? Hell,
can
I?

Yes, it is normal print. If your gradnmother or you can't read it,
you both need glasses. It's newsprint size.
Bullsh*t.

"The product uses technological measures for copy protection-you
will not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with
the product activation procedures. Product activation procedures
and Microsoft's privacy statements will be described during the
launch of the product.
For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for
license terms), You must accept the enclosed License Agreement
before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of
the
License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for
refund."

Most retailers won't accept returns of open software, and figuring
out how to send it back to MS isn't all that easy, and if you do
figure it out, you don't get a full refund.

If the person reads it before purchasing, there is no refund
necessary. If a person is too stupid to read what they are purchasing
it is their fault and should accept some responsibility.

How is this after the fact of purchase?

Because that's not the agreement you actually accept during the
installation process. Are you really that stupid, or do you just
play a MicroMoron in this newsgroup?

Are you so stupid to realize they shouldn't purchase it in the first
place?

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? Do you think MS is even concerned about individuals bent on
defeating the activation process? 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. 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.

MS has no right to
know what I do in my home, and they can write anything they want on
the side of the box, but that doesn't give them the right to even
know I bought MS software,

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.

let alone gives them the right to try to
legally bait-n-switch their "shrinkwrap license" into a "software
license" after the fact of the sale of the copy of software.

There is no "bait-n-switch " when the consumer has access to the limitations
prior to purchase. Where is the bait and switch? What is so hard to
understand about this?
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.
--

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]

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.

--
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!"

 

[David]

Did you ever even actually read his faq? I don't think anywhere he
says go ahead and install it on multiple computers, he just says it
may be possible here's some info on why. Just like I could put up a
website showing how to make bombs as long as I don't tell you to
actually build one and blow something up.

I'm not referring to his FAQ. I'm am referring to post he has made to
these newsgroups.

--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[kurttrail]

I'm not referring to his FAQ. I'm am referring to post he has made
to these newsgroups.

Post a link, Liar. I never said it.

--
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!"

 

[David]

I think the U.S. Supreme Court already had an opinion issued in
regards to the First Amendment. For example, you [cannot] yell
"FIRE!" inside a crowded theater.

They were wrong. ;-)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the First
Admendment is not an Absolute Right that allows to say anything you want.

The U.S Supreme Court has established guidelines as to what
constitutes Protected and Unprotected Speech under the First Admendment.

Unprotected includes..

Obsenity
Child Pornagrapgy
Threats
False Statements that the person knows are Fasle
Statements that likely to cause immediate lawless conduct *
Crimanal solictation or conspiracy.

* Expression intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action:
inciting a riot, yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.


I don't blame you, Kurt, For your ignorence on how out Government and
Legal sysems work. I blame the Educatioanl system and it's failure to
teach students how Not only how Governemt works. But, Also how it is
supposed to work.

But I'm not yelling, "Fire," am I? I'm stating my opinions, and as far
as I know, Congress has yet to pass a law that prohibits my "free
exercise thereof."

There is a fine line between voicing an Opinion and making a Statement.
If I were to write that " I think you are an Idiot" I would be voicing an
Opinion and be covered by the !st Admendment. But, If I wrote " You are
an Idiot", That would be libel and can be Prosecuted. I have seen you
post that to EULa is un-enforcable and tell people that they can legally
circumvent Product Activation. That is NOT voicing an Opinion.

I agree, and should be punished as a criminal.


This example is in the spirit of what Supreme Court Justice Potter
Stewart wrote about the purpose of copyright:

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html


As long as those that sell those "products" want to try to control the
use of those products in the privacy of our homes, the "in-fighting"
over it will only get more vehement.


Yeah, MS has been found guilty of anti-trust violations in regards to
the browser, and patent infringement of their browser plug-in
technology, but not one US consumer has ever been found guilty of
anything for using software on more than one computer. Who is the real
"pirate" with $49 billion in liquid assets?

--
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!"

--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[David]

I think the U.S. Supreme Court already had an opinion issued in
regards to the First Amendment. For example, you [cannot] yell
"FIRE!" inside a crowded theater.

i thought it was you can't yell "Movie!!!" in a crowded Firehouse.


--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[kurttrail]

I think the U.S. Supreme Court already had an opinion issued in
regards to the First Amendment. For example, you [cannot] yell
"FIRE!" inside a crowded theater.

They were wrong. ;-)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the First
Admendment is not an Absolute Right that allows to say anything you
want.

The U.S Supreme Court has established guidelines as to what
constitutes Protected and Unprotected Speech under the First
Admendment.

Unprotected includes..

Obsenity
Child Pornagrapgy
Threats
False Statements that the person knows are Fasle
Statements that likely to cause immediate lawless conduct *
Crimanal solictation or conspiracy.

* Expression intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action:
inciting a riot, yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.


I don't blame you, Kurt, For your ignorence on how out Government
and Legal sysems work. I blame the Educatioanl system and it's
failure to teach students how Not only how Governemt works. But, Also
how it is supposed to work.

I wrote this very short sentence as more of a joke, hence the wink after
it. Only a friggin' moron like you would take it seriously. I know how
gov't & the law work alot better than you do.

There is a fine line between voicing an Opinion and making a
Statement. If I were to write that " I think you are an Idiot" I
would be voicing an Opinion and be covered by the !st Admendment.
But, If I wrote " You are an Idiot", That would be libel and can be
Prosecuted. I have seen you post that to EULa is un-enforcable and
tell people that they can legally circumvent Product Activation. That
is NOT voicing an Opinion.

I know you are an idiot! Sue Me!

--
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!"