MS Stole It's DRM From InterTrust

[kurttrail]

http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-1026595.html?tag=lh

That's why MS assumes that everybody is a thief!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Bill James]

That is just a preliminary ruling in a case that will likely run for a long time. Did you actually read that article? Especially the last paragraph:

"It's a very important victory for the patent holder, but they're a long way off from winning the ball game," patent attorney Bruce Sunstein said.

--

Bill James
Microsoft MVP·DTS

Win9x VBScript Utilities » www.billsway.com/vbspage/
Windows Tweaks & Tips » www.billsway.com/notes_public/

 

[kurttrail]

Now aren't you glad I gave you the opportunity to express your
opinion and explain yourself?
Now my problem with your assessment of MS's take on innocent until
proven guilty is they take everyone's word as the truth and if the
user says they are in compliance with the EULA, so be it.

So your guilty until you tell MS a good enough story, but what if you a
moron, and don't have the capacity to tell the PA phone reps a good
enough story, even though you have done anything wrong?

The

activation process XP includes, makes the user aware of the licensing
policies they must agree to, to install Windows XP.

Yeah, does it point out to them that MS claims the software wasn't sold!
LOL!

If after agreeing
to this, and they need to make a phone call activation the activation
center will listen to anyone's explanation that complies to the EULA
and give them a new activation code.

Only if your smart enough to tell a good enough story.

This is not a question of

accusing the user of guilt, it is a means of making them aware of
what they agree to.

What happens if the PA rep doesn't like the story he hears, do they give
the activation code? NO! SO you're GUILTY until you activated.

To facilitate multiple installs with the same CD
key they must consciously lie to the agreement and unless they offer
the truth during a phone activation they will get a new activation
code.

You can lie to an agreement, or a computer screen. You break a
contract, that you have previously accepted. There is no lying! One
can only lie to oneself, or another human being!

Breaking a contract is immoral, illegal, nor a lie! What don't you get
about this!

There is really no mention of penalty or prosecution of
offenders.

The penalty is that they don't activate the really expensive software
that you paid for with your hard earned money!

It only says, if you agree to the license, you will be
entitled to the full use of the software. If you don't agree, you can
probably manage to install it, but you are not entitled to anything
else.
I see MS giving huge latitudes towards trust. What you suggest is
taking advantage of the trusts MS gives; by lying to an agreement you
know as not likely to be prosecuted or challenged, but in clear
violation of the original agreement.

Trust with conditions, ain't really trust in my book. If I trust
someone, I trust them, no questions asked. If I have to question their
veracity, even a little bit, then I really don't trust them.

But what does this have to do with all MS supporters here branding
anyone that 'fairly uses' the software that they legally purchased for
the private use, as doing something illegal, immoral, and any other
negative connotation, when not one individual has even been legally
found guilty of it! You were so quick to point out that I was branding
MS guilty before a court ruled they were, why aren't you pointing out
when MS's Supporters brand 'fairly using' software as illegal and/or
immoral, though not one private indivdual has been sued, let alone found
guilty of any wrong-doing in connection to this?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

kurttrail wrote:

Looks like I missed a few "n't"'s. You should be able to figure out
where they go.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[John B]

Michael Stevens, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to
use, wrote:

Now aren't you glad I gave you the opportunity to express your opinion and
explain yourself?
Now my problem with your assessment of MS's take on innocent until proven
guilty is they take everyone's word as the truth and if the user says they
are in compliance with the EULA, so be it. The activation process XP
includes, makes the user aware of the licensing policies they must agree to,
to install Windows XP. If after agreeing to this, and they need to make a
phone call activation the activation center will listen to anyone's
explanation that complies to the EULA and give them a new activation code.
This is not a question of accusing the user of guilt, it is a means of
making them aware of what they agree to.

But as you said in earlier arguments, it *won't* install unless the 'agree'
button is clicked, how could the user *not* be aware already? M$ is using
redundancy checking, and this is the same as just outright accusing the user as
being a thief before they even take the plastic off the box. Besides, there is
no 'guilt' when one isn't commiting a crime.

To facilitate multiple installs
with the same CD key they must consciously lie to the agreement and unless
they offer the truth during a phone activation they will get a new
activation code.

"Offer the truth"!? You just ****ed your ol' lady last night too, are you
going to "offer the truth" to them about that too? Are you going to "offer the
truth" about how you ate her out, or you two are into the S&M thing? You have
probably littered somewhere that may have a fine for doing so...are you going
to "offer the truth" about that?
They ain't "lying" about, or to, anyone or anything. The person who does this
in the privacy of their home, is just doing what he or she *wants* to do in
*their* home. They're *consciously* ignoring the stupidity of a 'thing' trying
to make their life more complicated by giving them grief and trouble when it's
something they *own*! Yes damnit, they *own* it. It's an 'object', it has
'software' on it, they paid far too much money for the crappy work of the
'software' so they could *use* it. Gahdamn M$ even wants everyone to believe
it's 'wrong' and 'illegal' to even have the shit software installed on two
seperate partitions on *ONE SINGLE COMPUTER*!? It's bullshit, and they have no
right to try and make the home user 'fearful' of some kind of reprisal for
doing what they want in their own home with something they've paid for! If M$'s
spEULA was actually worth a shit, then every drugstore on the face of the world
would use something similar or almost identical, for every bottle of pills they
make up for people. There's *real* laws about taking drugs, but if one is in
their own home and not out on the street selling them, the *law* can't do a
damn thing about the person taking more than normal so they can get high. So
why don't the drugstores do this? Because the person paid for it, and they're
in their own home, and the *real* laws protect us from the kind of crap
fearmongering that M$ is pulling with their spEULA.

There is really no mention of penalty or prosecution of
offenders. It only says, if you agree to the license, you will be entitled
to the full use of the software. If you don't agree, you can probably manage
to install it, but you are not entitled to anything else.
I see MS giving huge latitudes towards trust. What you suggest is taking
advantage of the trusts MS gives; by lying to an agreement you know as not
likely to be prosecuted or challenged, but in clear violation of the
original agreement.

What "huge lattitudes towards trust"!? You mean a bunch of idiots sit down in
a room one day, and they all finally agree that since they can't trust *every
single person* who wants to use their software, *WON'T* try to install it on
more than one system, they make up something like WPA? If that isn't accusing
every single potential buyer of M$' crap of being a thief and a liar, tell us
what is.

John

 

[kurttrail]

[I'll try one more time. Except to say that I have been hung up on by
MS Office PA reps, just for asking to speak to a supervisor, I'll agree
to disagree with you over the PA side of this thread, but I started this
not as much to question PA, but to show how MS's supporters
"Conclusion-Jumping" was as wrong as mine about MS & Intertrust, and why
people of good conscience shouldn't allow anybody get away with it, by
keeping silent.]

"But what does this have to do with the MS supporters here branding
anyone that 'fairly uses' the software that they legally purchased for
the private use, as doing something illegal, immoral, and any other
negative connotation, when not one individual has even been legally
found guilty of it! You were so quick to point out that I was branding
MS guilty before a court ruled they were, why aren't you pointing out
when MS's Supporters brand 'fairly using' software as illegal and/or
immoral, though not one private individual has been sued, let alone
found
guilty of any wrong-doing in connection to this?"

If we can agree that I was wrong to do my "Conclusion-Jumping," then why
don't you say anything when MS's supporters do the same thing here? Or
is it only OK to point out my "Conclusion-Jumping," because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?

At least I can say that what Intertrust accuses MS of doing is actually
illegal, though whether the facts back up Intertrust's contentions has
yet to be determined, but MS's supporters can't find one law or court
decision that backs up that "fairly using" retail software by a private
individual is *ILLEGAL* or a violation of *COPYRIGHT* *LAW*, so how can
you, in good conscience, allow these things, that are said here quite
often, to pass unquestioned? Or is it only OK to question my
"Conclusion-Jumping," because I don't happen to agree with you & MS over
PA?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Michael Stevens]

[I'll try one more time. Except to say that I have been hung up on by
MS Office PA reps, just for asking to speak to a supervisor, I'll
agree to disagree with you over the PA side of this thread, but I
started this not as much to question PA, but to show how MS's
supporters "Conclusion-Jumping" was as wrong as mine about MS &
Intertrust, and why people of good conscience shouldn't allow anybody
get away with it, by keeping silent.]

"But what does this have to do with the MS supporters here branding
anyone that 'fairly uses' the software that they legally purchased for
the private use, as doing something illegal, immoral, and any other
negative connotation, when not one individual has even been legally
found guilty of it! You were so quick to point out that I was
branding MS guilty before a court ruled they were, why aren't you
pointing out when MS's Supporters brand 'fairly using' software as
illegal and/or immoral, though not one private individual has been
sued, let alone found
guilty of any wrong-doing in connection to this?"

If we can agree that I was wrong to do my "Conclusion-Jumping," then
why don't you say anything when MS's supporters do the same thing
here? Or is it only OK to point out my "Conclusion-Jumping," because
I don't happen to agree with you & MS over PA?

At least I can say that what Intertrust accuses MS of doing is
actually illegal, though whether the facts back up Intertrust's
contentions has yet to be determined, but MS's supporters can't find
one law or court decision that backs up that "fairly using" retail
software by a private individual is *ILLEGAL* or a violation of
*COPYRIGHT* *LAW*, so how can you, in good conscience, allow these
things, that are said here quite often, to pass unquestioned? Or is
it only OK to question my "Conclusion-Jumping," because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?

The contention that a breach of a contract agreement necessary to deceive
the PA and has never been prosecuted supports your fair rights theory does
not make it right to do so or even safe to recommend in my opinion. I find
most legal opinons side with the contract holder until the contract is ruled
unfair. Fair rights has not been challenged or ruled on with regard to
deception of PA as a means to acheive multiple installs from the same
license and I don't see it being challenged from either side in the near
future. It might not be illegal, but it could cost the person that takes
fair rights as the reason some bucks if they do become the test case and
that is why in good consience I do not support your views. I can't educate
the people that post to these newsgroups any better than you can with regard
to what is law and what is not when it has never been defined. I hope I
have explained one more time my opinion.

--

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]

[I'll try one more time. Except to say that I have been hung up on by
MS Office PA reps, just for asking to speak to a supervisor, I'll
agree to disagree with you over the PA side of this thread,

I meant to address this.
Did you call back? This has happened to me[not with Office but XP] when I
have asked to speak to a supervisor[and not only in MS support]. I doubt it
was intentional, and if you called back, what were your results? My results
were I got an apology an the exact result I expected after telling them I
made changes incomplience with the EULA.
--

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:

The contention that a breach of a contract agreement necessary to
deceive the PA and has never been prosecuted supports your fair
rights theory does not make it right to do so or even safe to
recommend in my opinion.

I have no problem with people saying it violates MS's EULA.

I find most legal opinons side with the
contract holder until the contract is ruled unfair.

In general, I'd agree with you. There is a thing call legal
malpractice, and lawyers have to cover their butts. MS's EULA goes way
beyond the scope of what shrinkwrap licenses were originally intended in
retail products, which is to define the relationship between
manufacturer & purchaser due to a defect in the product.

Fair rights has
not been challenged or ruled on with regard to deception of PA as a
means to acheive multiple installs from the same license and I don't
see it being challenged from either side in the near future.

It already is being challenged, but not in the courts, but by the
lobbyists of the corporate copyright owners flooding Washington with
their money!

It might
not be illegal, but it could cost the person that takes fair rights
as the reason some bucks if they do become the test case and that is
why in good consience I do not support your views.

It's not illegal until a court rules it is or a law says it is, that's
my point of this thread.

I can't educate
the people that post to these newsgroups any better than you can with
regard to what is law and what is not when it has never been
defined.

But as long as people of good conscience remain silent, their silence is
perceived as a tacit approval, especially when repeated as often as it
is here. If Bruce Chambers fellow MVP's question him on what COPYRIGHT
LAW is being violated, instead of just JohnB & me, I'd bet he'd change
his tune. And others would to, but never will, if not challenge to back
up their nonsense!

I hope I have explained one more time my opinion.

Yes, but you didn't answer my post, so answer this one, if you like, but
I am done.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Ted]

But as long as people of good conscience remain silent, their silence is
perceived as a tacit approval, especially when repeated as often as it
If Bruce Chambers fellow MVP's question him on what COPYRIGHT
LAW is being violated, instead of just JohnB & me, I'd bet he'd change
his tune. And others would to, but never will, if not challenge to back
up their nonsense!

You won't get that from Brucy, or from the other MVPs. Hell, one of them could be totally wrong, and nary a one would correct the other, lest the breakup of "The Fellowship of the Ring (Their self understood EULA terms)", while on their way to Mordor (MS PA). He makes this shit up as seeming legal, but in his own words, and not from anything that is from a true legal document.

Bruce may be bad, as to date, he has posted this shit 197 times (http://tinyurl.com/hha6)! But Nicholas (isn't he the MS EULA watchdog named Carey Frisch?), and escpeially the gormless, MS arse raped Ken Blake, say that there are illegalities ad nauseam, when replying to others about another usage of the same copy of XP (or another version of Windows) on another PC as another installation instance. They NEVER say anything about it breaking the EULA, just that it is illegal.

 

[kurttrail]

Ted" <"""" wrote:

You won't get that from Brucy, or from the other MVPs. Hell, one of
them could be totally wrong, and nary a one would correct the other,
lest the breakup of "The Fellowship of the Ring (Their self
understood EULA terms)", while on their way to Mordor (MS PA). He
makes this shit up as seeming legal, but in his own words, and not
from anything that is from a true legal document.

Bruce may be bad, as to date, he has posted this shit 197 times
(http://tinyurl.com/hha6)! But Nicholas (isn't he the MS EULA
watchdog named Carey Frisch?), and escpeially the gormless, MS arse
raped Ken Blake, say that there are illegalities ad nauseam, when
replying to others about another usage of the same copy of XP (or
another version of Windows) on another PC as another installation
instance. They NEVER say anything about it breaking the EULA, just
that it is illegal.

http://tinyurl.com/hhb4

194, before someone else jumps down your throat, and that's including
other groups other than this one, but even I can't believe the number,
Wow! Nicholass the Butterfly Woman doesn't know anything that it can't
copy and paste from elsewhere, and Ken just doens't have a very good
grasp of reality, but Bruce Chambers is a representative of MS, one of
their MVP's, and shouldn't be allowed to keep regurgitating his nonsense
totally unquestioned by his peers, ie. other MS-MVP's.

But the silence of Bruce's fellow MVP's is deafening!

It must only be "OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with . . . . MS over PA!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Ted]

Ted" <"""" wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/hhb4

194, before someone else jumps down your throat, and that's including
other groups other than this one, but even I can't believe the number,
Wow! Nicholass the Butterfly Woman doesn't know anything that it can't
copy and paste from elsewhere, and Ken just doens't have a very good
grasp of reality, but Bruce Chambers is a representative of MS, one of
their MVP's, and shouldn't be allowed to keep regurgitating his nonsense
totally unquestioned by his peers, ie. other MS-MVP's.

But the silence of Bruce's fellow MVP's is deafening!

It must only be "OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with . . . . MS over PA!"

For me personally, I won't use another instance of XP (or Windows) on another PC, because I did agree to the terms therein, that the EULA provides. But again, that is for me personally, but there is a difference between one's conscious, and a legality, in which it is *NOT* illegal in any sense of the word to break MS's EULA, since there are no criminal laws written in favor/for MS. While I don't tell others what to do with their copies of Windows, as opposed to my thoughts; spouting out misconeptions, or illegalities because of of a zealous belief, is certainly worthy of an MVP, IMHO, since they make shit up as they go along, besides giving some bad technical advice.

To prove that Blake and Chambers are ****wits to the nth degree, they also say that XP Home and Pro are "exactly the same in *all* respects, with the exception being blah, blah............. "(exception not included as it is self-explanatory). But they are different in what they offer in their respective total functionality, yet do not change their wordings when called down on this. If two things are *exactly the same in "all" respects*, then there can be no difference, using logic. But logic is something most of these MVP ****wits have little of, both technically, and legally!

 

[kurttrail]

[I'll try one more time. Except to say that I have been hung up on
by MS Office PA reps, just for asking to speak to a supervisor, I'll
agree to disagree with you over the PA side of this thread,

I meant to address this.
Did you call back? This has happened to me[not with Office but XP]
when I have asked to speak to a supervisor[and not only in MS
support]. I doubt it was intentional, and if you called back, what
were your results? My results were I got an apology an the exact
result I expected after telling them I made changes incomplience with
the EULA.

I called back and was activated, but I know what I'm doing! Why is the
first question they ask, "Why are you activating?" Like the average
consumer knows why? Oh sure the details are on aumha.org, and buried
somewhere on MS's website, but why should they have to know the
intricacies of PA just to use the very expensive software that they
legally purchased with their hard-earned money, in the midst of a
recession on top of everything?!

And now the rest of MS's BSA Trust seems to be adopting the same
measures. Soon to reinstall all your software after a major hardware
upgrade, you'll have to spend half your day on the phone explaining to
different software companies that you upgraded your computer. Then that
hardware fails and you have to send it back for repairs. So you put in
your old hardware to get you by in the mean time. Bang, Bang, Bang,
Bang, Bang! There goes another day shot down the tubes on the phone
explaining that it still your effin' computer, just different hardware
because of defective hardware you just upgraded to. Then 45 days later
the manufacturer decides not to fix your hardware, but replace it &
actually send it to you, by the slowest means possible, you tear your
computer apart again, reinstall everything, spend another day on the
phone explaining to all your buddies at all the software companies, that
you really aren't a thief, just having a little bit of trouble
maintaining a functioning computer. Now a month or so goes by, and you
find that the hardware is really just a piece of sh*t, and go out and
replace it, writing off the sh*t as a lost cause. Bang, Bang, Bang,
Bang, Bang! Another day shot to hell, at best, with all these different
companies differing activations policies, it might just be a lot worse.

This scenario with the hardware actually happened to me with
multifunction Mobo's this year, thank god I only had to go though it
with MS over Office XP, but soon who knows what it's really gonna be
like when all the members of the BSA Trust adopt PA, but it not gonna
make the overall computing experience any friendlier or easier, that
much I can say. All I really know is that I think I just may have to
reconsider "borrowing" a friend's pre-SP1 copy of Office 2000, and just
save myself from any further Activation hassle in the future!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Michael Stevens]

[I'll try one more time. Except to say that I have been hung up on
by MS Office PA reps, just for asking to speak to a supervisor, I'll
agree to disagree with you over the PA side of this thread,

I meant to address this.
Did you call back? This has happened to me[not with Office but XP]
when I have asked to speak to a supervisor[and not only in MS
support]. I doubt it was intentional, and if you called back, what
were your results? My results were I got an apology an the exact
result I expected after telling them I made changes incomplience with
the EULA.

I called back and was activated, but I know what I'm doing! Why is
the first question they ask, "Why are you activating?" Like the
average consumer knows why? Oh sure the details are on aumha.org,
and buried somewhere on MS's website, but why should they have to
know the intricacies of PA just to use the very expensive software
that they legally purchased with their hard-earned money, in the
midst of a recession on top of everything?!

And now the rest of MS's BSA Trust seems to be adopting the same
measures. Soon to reinstall all your software after a major hardware
upgrade, you'll have to spend half your day on the phone explaining to
different software companies that you upgraded your computer. Then
that hardware fails and you have to send it back for repairs. So you
put in your old hardware to get you by in the mean time. Bang, Bang,
Bang, Bang, Bang! There goes another day shot down the tubes on the
phone explaining that it still your effin' computer, just different
hardware because of defective hardware you just upgraded to. Then 45
days later the manufacturer decides not to fix your hardware, but
replace it & actually send it to you, by the slowest means possible,
you tear your computer apart again, reinstall everything, spend
another day on the phone explaining to all your buddies at all the
software companies, that you really aren't a thief, just having a
little bit of trouble maintaining a functioning computer. Now a
month or so goes by, and you find that the hardware is really just a
piece of sh*t, and go out and replace it, writing off the sh*t as a
lost cause. Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang! Another day shot to hell,
at best, with all these different companies differing activations
policies, it might just be a lot worse.

This scenario with the hardware actually happened to me with
multifunction Mobo's this year, thank god I only had to go though it
with MS over Office XP, but soon who knows what it's really gonna be
like when all the members of the BSA Trust adopt PA, but it not gonna
make the overall computing experience any friendlier or easier, that
much I can say. All I really know is that I think I just may have to
reconsider "borrowing" a friend's pre-SP1 copy of Office 2000, and
just save myself from any further Activation hassle in the future!

Isn't it a bitch what dishonest people cause us honest people to go through?
8-( Same thing with my car insurance, and the penalty that comes with
everything I buy because of theft. If it wasn't for dishonest people, no one
would need locks on their doors, or even keys. It is a shame theft
prevention measures cause hard ship to the innocent, but it is not the fault
of anyone but the thief that causes the problem for the innocent. I am sure
the process of verifying the rights to use intellectual properties on fair
and equitable basis will become streamlined and your input can be as useful
as anyone's if you want it to.
--

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]

Isn't it a bitch what dishonest people cause us honest people to go
through?

You mean how dishonest MS is in over-blowing casual copying in order to
make people believe that there is some need for PA, right?! Not to
mention that MS adds the price of theft to their products, just like any
manufacturer!

8-( Same thing with my car insurance, and the penalty that

comes with everything I buy because of theft. If it wasn't for
dishonest people, no one would need locks on their doors, or even
keys.

Go to hell! I ain't getting in this conversation again! Or don't you
remember the last time you brought up locks!

http://microscum.kurttrail.com/mlslies/

Just in case you did forget! ;-)

It is a shame theft prevention measures cause hard ship to the

innocent, but it is not the fault of anyone but the thief that causes
the problem for the innocent.

My locks on my property. My copy of software is MY PROPERTY! MS only
owns the copyright to the overall code, not MY COPY!

I am sure the process of verifying the

rights to use intellectual properties on fair and equitable basis
will become streamlined and your input can be as useful as anyone's
if you want it to.

I'm sure that I won't have to deal with it, because any company that
puts in any form of PA is now dead to me! Treat me as a potential
thief, lose me as a potential customer. And now that more companies are
treating the customers as potential thieves, the more customers that
will doing the same thing.

Software manufacturers that don't treat their customers as potential
thieves, will find it easier to sell the software than those that do!

Microsoft, Intuit, & Powerquest has lost a very good customer already!
And I'm sure I'm not the only one that they have lost over PA. MS has
$46 billion in the bank to ride out consumer dissatisfaction for a
little while, I doubt the other members of the BSA TRUST are in such a
good position to be deliberately pissing off their paying customers,
especially when the Tech sector is in such a volitile position due to
the recession!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Mike Brearley]

Software manufacturers that don't treat their customers as potential
thieves, will find it easier to sell the software than those that do!

Microsoft, Intuit, & Powerquest has lost a very good customer already!
And I'm sure I'm not the only one that they have lost over PA. MS has
$46 billion in the bank to ride out consumer dissatisfaction for a
little while, I doubt the other members of the BSA TRUST are in such a
good position to be deliberately pissing off their paying customers,
especially when the Tech sector is in such a volitile position due to
the recession!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

I agree, Intuit has lost my business. Up till last year I bought their
turbotax software every year to do my taxes. I know I'm only one out of a
very large number of customers they have, but it goes without mention that
I'm not the only one that switched to a different vender due to their PA.

--
Posted 'as is'. If there are any spelling and/or grammar mistakes, they
were a direct result of my fingers and brain not being synchronized or my
lack of caffeine.

Mike

 

[CS]

I agree, Intuit has lost my business. Up till last year I bought their
turbotax software every year to do my taxes. I know I'm only one out of a
very large number of customers they have, but it goes without mention that
I'm not the only one that switched to a different vender due to their PA.

In case you haven't heard: Intuit has removed activation from their
new version of Turbo Tax (2003) due to the overwhelming backlash of
consumers. However, I believe Intuit still uses activation for
Quickbooks and several other programs they publish.

As for Symantec and Powerquest - there are too many good alternatives
to NAV, Ghost, Drive Image, PM, and some of their other programs. I
predict they too will back off when they begin to lose money.

The best way to deal with activation is hit them (MS and others) where
it hurts - in their earnings. Just don't buy their products.

 

[kurttrail]

In case you haven't heard: Intuit has removed activation from their
new version of Turbo Tax (2003) due to the overwhelming backlash of
consumers. However, I believe Intuit still uses activation for
Quickbooks and several other programs they publish.

As for Symantec and Powerquest - there are too many good alternatives
to NAV, Ghost, Drive Image, PM, and some of their other programs. I
predict they too will back off when they begin to lose money.

The best way to deal with activation is hit them (MS and others) where
it hurts - in their earnings. Just don't buy their products.

Amen! MS may be able to ride it out, but the rest of the software
industry can't afford to piss off it's customer base!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Michael Stevens]

You mean how dishonest MS is in over-blowing casual copying in order
to make people believe that there is some need for PA, right?! Not to
mention that MS adds the price of theft to their products, just like
any manufacturer!

Your opinion that MS is over-blowing casual copying, I haven't seen
substantiated. This is a good opportunity to show where you get your
allegations. Theft still occurs, PA was not meant or expected to stop it, PA
makes it obvious to what the user agrees to when they decide they have the
right to install on more than one computer using the same license.
My statement still stands and what you say I mean isn't what I said.

8-( Same thing with my car insurance, and the penalty that

Go to hell! I ain't getting in this conversation again! Or don't you
remember the last time you brought up locks!

What was wrong about my assessment you tell me to go to hell about?

http://microscum.kurttrail.com/mlslies/

Just in case you did forget! ;-)

Yes I remember, and I would hope anyone with any modicum of common decency
that reads your archive sees it for what it's worth. A misunderstanding that
was aborted on my side when you used dirty, vile, unconscionable tactics I
had never encountered or thought humans beings would use to win a difference
of opinion. I certainly invite everyone to scrutinize your archive and sees
it for what it is. I admit I was shocked and naive, and had never dealt with
anyone with your lack of morals and mad dog mentality. Today; it would not
have progressed as it did; as my father had just died from Alzheimer's
disease I was an easy target and I gave you all the ammunition you needed
and used to exploit my weakness.

It is a shame theft prevention measures cause hard ship to the

My locks on my property. My copy of software is MY PROPERTY! MS only
owns the copyright to the overall code, not MY COPY!

This absolutely true, and so is the restrictions printed on the OUTSIDE of
the BOX you bought with YOUR COPY. Has ignorance now become a reason to
disagree to a limitation of a product you buy?

I am sure the process of verifying the

I'm sure that I won't have to deal with it, because any company that
puts in any form of PA is now dead to me! Treat me as a potential
thief, lose me as a potential customer. And now that more companies
are treating the customers as potential thieves, the more customers
that will doing the same thing.

Software manufacturers that don't treat their customers as potential
thieves, will find it easier to sell the software than those that do!

Microsoft, Intuit, & Powerquest has lost a very good customer already!
And I'm sure I'm not the only one that they have lost over PA. MS has
$46 billion in the bank to ride out consumer dissatisfaction for a
little while, I doubt the other members of the BSA TRUST are in such a
good position to be deliberately pissing off their paying customers,
especially when the Tech sector is in such a volitile position due to
the recession!

This you way of sending your message, and I have nothing to disagree about
it. I believe your message will be heard, but PA will only be streamlined
and not go away. Your ability to steal or bypass the activation process
will become more difficult and less attractive to the casual copier. I hope
you have a good alternative that suits your needs and please keep expressing
your opinions. Opinions are food for thought and everyone has one.

--

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]

Your ability to steal or bypass the
activation process will become more difficult and less attractive to
the casual copier. I hope you have a good alternative that suits your
needs and please keep expressing your opinions. Opinions are food for
thought and everyone has one.

Should say:
"The ability to steal or bypass the"
I was not accusing you personally and you have expressed many times you do
not condone theft of software, you don't agree with how you can use software
you have legally purchased.
--

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