MS Stole It's DRM From InterTrust

  • Thread starter Thread starter kurttrail
  • Start date Start date
Michael said:
Your opinion that MS is over-blowing casual copying, I haven't seen
substantiated.
Click to expand...

$49 billion! The ain't chicken feed! And if casual copying were the
true target of PA as MS claims then the only question that needs to be
ask is, "is this your copy of software," and/or MS could have stopped
selling their software to anonymous people.

It's really MS case that hasn't been substantiated! If this were
"substantiated" then MS would be compensated for their loss through
their insurance companies.

Now you try to substantiate MS's opinon that casual copying is really
the target of PA.

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.
Click to expand...

That's MS's line, substantiate it! Theft of product happens to every
manufacturer and is included in the price of everything we buy.

The book publishing business has thrived over the years, despite people
sharing their books amoungst themselves, and despite that we have
gov't-sponsered Free Public Librabies, and no one has to ever buy the
book to legally read it, if they don't want to.

The book industry knows that this actually helps to drive sales up!
What was wrong about my assessment you tell me to go to hell about?


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.
Click to expand...

Your weakness is product of your own mind, not your father's genetic
legacy, nor a product of my writings, and just goes to prove one of my
other recent points I've made around here, that those that show that
they are affected by vulgar language & insults are the one's with feeble
minds.

And anyone that reads the whole thread will see I gave you the
opportunity to recant your LIES or just go away, or you would be
inviting my retribution, which you decided to reply by telling me
something to the effect of "bring it on!" You don't even remember that
you asked for it, on top of being a lying scumbag! Rewriting the events
by purposely placing quotes out of order is NOT a simple
misunderstanding by any stretch of the imagination! And that you still
don't understand this, is effin' amazing!

You are totally irrational, like a MicroB*tch in heat!
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?
Click to expand...

Commercial Use limitations that can not be legally enforced in the
anonymity of my home on my property.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

That's the difference! Copyright owners don't possess the right to
limit an individual's reproduction of a copyrighted work for a "fair
use."
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.
Click to expand...

This copyright pogram by the corporate copyright owners on it's own
paying customers opens up unlimited possibilities for Organized Crime,
just like when the gov't wanted to teach everybody about the evils of
alcohol! Just what every society needs, more innocent bystanders dying
in the streets!

The customer is always right, and those companies that understand this
will keep their customers, and attrack more. Those that don't, and
don't have $49 billion in monopoly money, will feel it in the
pocketbook.

--
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 so love the way you change what I say by answering only the parts you want
to answer.
What I said was
<quote>
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.
$49 billion! The ain't chicken feed! And if casual copying were the
true target of PA as MS claims then the only question that needs to be
ask is, "is this your copy of software," and/or MS could have stopped
selling their software to anonymous people.
Click to expand...

Did I ask the question to the above answer?
It's really MS case that hasn't been substantiated! If this were
"substantiated" then MS would be compensated for their loss through
their insurance companies.
Click to expand...

No, it's you that I asked where you get your information about casual
copying. I didn't question MS. I see on a daily basis in these newsgroups
how consumers don't understand what casual copying is and the newsgroups are
a miniscule percentage of the XP install base.
Now you try to substantiate MS's opinon that casual copying is really
the target of PA.
Click to expand...

I never raised the question as far as I remember, but I see it on a daily
basis in the newsgroups as I mentioned above.
This is a good opportunity to show where you get your

That's MS's line, substantiate it! Theft of product happens to every
manufacturer and is included in the price of everything we buy.

The book publishing business has thrived over the years, despite
people sharing their books amoungst themselves, and despite that we
have gov't-sponsered Free Public Librabies, and no one has to ever
buy the book to legally read it, if they don't want to.

The book industry knows that this actually helps to drive sales up!
Click to expand...

You seemed to have missed this question.
Your weakness is product of your own mind, not your father's genetic
legacy, nor a product of my writings, and just goes to prove one of my
other recent points I've made around here, that those that show that
they are affected by vulgar language & insults are the one's with
feeble minds.

And anyone that reads the whole thread will see I gave you the
opportunity to recant your LIES or just go away, or you would be
inviting my retribution, which you decided to reply by telling me
something to the effect of "bring it on!" You don't even remember
that you asked for it, on top of being a lying scumbag! Rewriting
the events by purposely placing quotes out of order is NOT a simple
misunderstanding by any stretch of the imagination! And that you
still don't understand this, is effin' amazing!

You are totally irrational, like a MicroB*tch in heat!
Click to expand...

No the weakness you exploited is now my strength and fuels my pity towards
you, [MicroB*tch in heat!
, what a nice touch LOL]I wonder what circumstances created the antisocial
beliefs that numbs you to any sense of fair play. It is such a shame, but I
am pretty amazed how you haven't completely lost your cool in this thread.
Like I said, anybody that scrutinizes the archived thread will see it for
it's confusing jumbled mess. Just like the below quote from this thread
could cause confusion. All of the quote below was from me, but the > and >>
brackets make it look like it is from two posts.

This is a good opportunity to show where you get your

Commercial Use limitations that can not be legally enforced in the
anonymity of my home on my property.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

That's the difference! Copyright owners don't possess the right to
limit an individual's reproduction of a copyrighted work for a "fair
use."
Click to expand...

OK, so knowing you are in violation of the agreement and ignorance of the
fact makes no difference.
It will be interesting to see the outcome if it is ever challenged in court.

I thought ignorance of the law was not a defense, but I see, the EULA is not
a law according to you. How does this apply to a contractual agreement?
This copyright pogram by the corporate copyright owners on it's own
paying customers opens up unlimited possibilities for Organized Crime,
just like when the gov't wanted to teach everybody about the evils of
alcohol! Just what every society needs, more innocent bystanders
dying in the streets!
Click to expand...

LOL, good one. A bit of a streatch, but orginized crime can find a loophole
in anything and does.
The customer is always right, and those companies that understand this
will keep their customers, and attrack more. Those that don't, and
don't have $49 billion in monopoly money, will feel it in the
pocketbook.
Click to expand...

Let's hope so.
--

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
 
You're starting to exhibit signs of a Bracket-Confusion relapse, so I
thought I'd start from scratch before you get your panties twisted
again.

What is this thread about, Mikey? I accused MS of being a thief though
that has yet to be proven. We both agreed that I was wrong to do this,
because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS infringed on their
patents. MS claims to be hurt by casual copy piracy from their paying
customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to prove that MS's alleged losses due to casual
copying are false; It is up to MS to prove their allegations of casual
copy piracy are in fact true! Why should anyone believe MS's
"Conclusion-Jumping" that has yet to be legally proven, anymore than my
"Conclusion-Jumping" about the InterTrust ruling? Just because MS
claims that casual-copying piracy, does not mean an effin' hill of beans
unless the can legally prove it! Right?

I could claim that you are a thief, but why should anybody believe that
unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's *CLAIMS*
of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to prove it?

Do you even know what "casual copying" is? You should because I know I
have explained it to you in the past!

"Casual copying is a form of piracy characterized by the sharing of
software between people in a way that infringes on the software's end
user license agreement (EULA)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Now I can count on my hands the number of times that someone has asked
here to share their software with somebody else. What we hear almost
every day, is people wanting to share their software with their self,
[in other words, for their "fair use,"] and that's not even casual
copying even by MS's own definition!

Is the EULA a law to you, Smarty Pants?! Has it written by duly elected
members of the sovereign gov't? LOL! "Any individual may reproduce a
copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess
the exclusive right to such a use." MS does not have the right to limit
an individual fair use of their software in a contract to begin with!
What can't you get through that thick skull of yours?!

Not to mention that MS's EULA also tries to rewrite Title 17 Chapter 1
Section 117, & their claim that their retail software isn't sold is
totally unconscionable, since you get have a sales receipt to prove
otherwise & at least 2 other legal entities, the wholesaler & the
retailer, have legally owned that copy of software before it was sold to
you and neither one of them were ever licensees of that copy that you
later bought.

But we've been though this over & over again.


So in conclusion, I was wrong for my "Conclusion-Jumping" that MS stole
their DRM from InterTrust. MS's supporters here are wrong for
"Conclusion-Jumping" that there is something illegal about an individual
installing the same copy of retail software on more than one of their
computers. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping" that their paying
customers are "casual copy" pirates!

The only difference between these three examples of "Conclusion-Jumping"
is that the allegations made against MS by InterTrust are actually
before a court to be decided, while MS's & it's supporters allegations
are nothing more than hot air at present!

"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!"
 
Here's my answer to you in a form that you can confuse the sh*t out of
the Brackets to your very hearts content! ;-)

Michael said:
I so love the way you change what I say by answering only the parts
you want to answer.
Click to expand...

You do know your replying here to what you wrote, don't you?
What I said was
<quote>
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.
Click to expand...

What is this thread about, Mikey? I accused MS of being a thief though
that has yet to be proven. We both agreed that I was wrong to do this,
because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS infringed on their
patents. MS claims to be hurt by casual copy piracy from their paying
customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to prove that MS's alleged losses due to casual
copying are false; It is up to MS to prove their allegations are in fact
true! Why should anyone believe MS's "Conclusion-Jumping?" that has yet
to be legally proven, anymore than my "Conclusion-Jumping" about the
InterTrust rulings?

Just because MS claims that casual-copying theft and/or piracy, does not
mean an effin' hill of beans unless the can legally prove it, which they
have yet to do!

I could claim that you are a thief, but why should anybody believe that
unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's CLAIMS
of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to prove it.
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.
Click to expand...

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/
My statement still stands and what you say I mean isn't what I said.
Click to expand...

What statement?
Did I ask the question to the above answer?
Click to expand...

No, you didn't really ask a *question* as my reply was to your
*statement*, "Your opinion that MS is over-blowing casual copying, I
haven't seen substantiated." Having problems comprehending English
again, I see.
No, it's you that I asked where you get your information about casual
copying. I didn't question MS.
Click to expand...

You didn't question any one
I see on a daily basis in these
newsgroups how consumers don't understand what casual copying is and
the newsgroups are a miniscule percentage of the XP install base.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what "casual copying" is? You should because I know I
have explained it to you in the past!

"Casual copying is a form of piracy characterized by the sharing of
software between people in a way that infringes on the software's end
user license agreement (EULA)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Now I can count on my hands the number of times that someone has asked
here to share their software with somebody else.
I never raised the question as far as I remember, but I see it on a
daily basis in the newsgroups as I mentioned above.
Click to expand...

No, what we hear almost every day, is people wanting to share their
software with their self, and that's not even casual copying even by
MS's definition!
You seemed to have missed this question.
Click to expand...

Really? So what? I think I already alluded to why I told you to go to
hell.

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

"Just in case you did forget! ;-)"
Your weakness is product of your own mind, not your father's genetic
legacy, nor a product of my writings, and just goes to prove one of
my other recent points I've made around here, that those that show
that
they are affected by vulgar language & insults are the one's with
feeble minds.

And anyone that reads the whole thread will see I gave you the
opportunity to recant your LIES or just go away, or you would be
inviting my retribution, which you decided to reply by telling me
something to the effect of "bring it on!" You don't even remember
that you asked for it, on top of being a lying scumbag! Rewriting
the events by purposely placing quotes out of order is NOT a simple
misunderstanding by any stretch of the imagination! And that you
still don't understand this, is effin' amazing!

You are totally irrational, like a MicroB*tch in heat!
Click to expand...

No the weakness you exploited is now my strength and fuels my pity
towards you, [MicroB*tch in heat!
, what a nice touch LOL]I wonder what circumstances created the
antisocial beliefs that numbs you to any sense of fair play. It is
such a shame, but I am pretty amazed how you haven't completely lost
your cool in this thread.
Like I said, anybody that scrutinizes the
archived thread will see it for it's confusing jumbled mess. Just
like the below quote from this thread could cause confusion. All of
the quote below was from me, but the > and >> brackets make it look
like it is from two posts.
Click to expand...

LOL! Yes, I do believe that's how you rationalize it to yourself!
"Bracket confusion!" ROFL!

I can see you starting to lose track of those brackets again, Mikey!
Tread very carefully!
OK, so knowing you are in violation of the agreement and ignorance of
the fact makes no difference.
Click to expand...

That's right, because "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work
for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive
right to such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

MS's EULA can only limit commercial and/or public usage of their
Copyrighted software. Or don't you believe the words of the Supreme
Court?
It will be interesting to see the outcome if it is ever challenged in
court.
Click to expand...

When MS grows some balls, like InterTrust, and legally back up their
allegations, we may find out. Can I suggest that you hold you breath
until MS does grow some balls?
I thought ignorance of the law was not a defense, but I see, the EULA
is not a law according to you.
Click to expand...

Is the EULA a law to you, Smarty Pants?! Has it written by duly elected
members of the sovereign gov't? LOL!
How does this apply to a contractual
agreement?
Click to expand...

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." MS
does not have the right to limit an individual fair use of their
software in a contract to begin with! What can't you get through that
thick skull of yours!

Not to mention that MS's EULA also tries to rewrite Title 17 Chapter 1
Section 117, & their claim that their retail software isn't sold is
totally unconscionable, since you get have a sales receipt to prove
otherwise & at least 2 other legal entities have legally owned that copy
of software before it was sold to you, the wholesaler & the retailer,
and they were never licensees of that copy you bought from the retailer.

But we've been though this over & over again.
LOL, good one. A bit of a streatch, but orginized crime can find a
loophole in anything and does.
Click to expand...

Yes, so that means we should create conditions that only helps them do
it easier?
Let's hope so.
Click to expand...

So in conclusion, I was wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping" that MS stole
their DRM from InterTrust. MS's supporters here are wrong for
"Conclusion-Jumping" that there is something illegal about an individual
installing the same copy of retail software on more than one of their
computers. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping" that their paying
customers are "casual copy" pirates!

The only difference between these three examples of "Conclusion-Jumping"
is that the allegations made against MS by InterTrust are actually
before a court to decide, while MS's & it's supporters allegations are
nothing more than hot air at present!

--
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,

Don't waste time trying to argue with Kurt. He's not bright enough to
understand that he does not own the software anymore then he "owns" the
music on the tape/CD he "bought" or the movie on that tape/DVD. So, there
is no way he'' understand that MS can put any restriction on their software
that they damn well feel like for any reason that they feel like. At least
a dozen people in here have tried to explain things to him. But, everyone
has given it up as a lost cause.

David
 
David said:
Michael,

Don't waste time trying to argue with Kurt.
Click to expand...

He can't help himself! He is way too desperate to try to trip me up in
any minute respect, after a year & half failing to do so, that any
reasoning capabilities he may actually possess, fly right out the effin'
window!
He's not bright enough
to understand that he does not own the software anymore then he
"owns" the music on the tape/CD he "bought" or the movie on that
tape/DVD.
Click to expand...

That right! I am not "*bright*" enough to either understand that, nor
am I "*bright*" enough to have ever claimed it either. I own the
*copies* of music or software that a retailer sold to me, the copyright
owner owns the copyright to the software and/or music, and "*Any*
*individual* *may* *reproduce* *a* *copyrighted* *work* *for* *a*
"*fair* *use*"; *the* *copyright* *owner* *does* *not* *possess* *the*
*exclusive* *right* *to* *such* *a* *use*." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
So, there is no way he'' understand that MS can put any
restriction on their software that they damn well feel like for any
reason that they feel like.
Click to expand...

That right! I am also not "*bright*" enough to understand this either,
because the US Constitution gave Congress that *power* to spell out what
rights that Copyright owners actually have. Our Founding Father were
bright enough not to give greedy-assed copyright owners that *power*!

Article. I. Section. 8. "The Congress shall have *Power* To . . . .
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries . . . ." -
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
At least a dozen people in here have
tried to explain things to him. But, everyone has given it up as a
lost cause.
Click to expand...

ROFL! Explain your opinions as I done, with references to laws, and/or
court opinions, and I would be very willing to listen to anybody that
presents their case as such, even you. But everyone around here has
tried to explain to me, unsuccessfully I might add, why they believe
that I'm wrong, instead of trying to prove why they believe their own
opinion is valid under the law. Want me to understand why your opinion
is valid, then back up your opinion with laws, and/or Court opinions,
instead of trying to nitpick me to death with nothing but unsupported
illogical nonsense!

I dare you, or anybody here, to support your opinion as I have have done
with my opinion! It's not like you got anything better to do, while the
rest of us are out working!

So here is your opinion:

"MS can put any restriction on their software that they damn well feel
like for any reason that they feel like."

Back up *your* opinion with laws and/or court rulings, as I have backed
up my opinion, or admit you are just the fat, lazy, and illogical fool
that I already believe you to be. My guess is that you'll either run
away with your tail between your legs, because I have already shown who
really has the *power* under the Constitution, and it ain't Copyright
owners, or you'll just ramble on about me & my opinion, instead of
trying to back up why your opinion is legally valid.

Put up or runaway? It's your choice!

--
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 said:
No thanks, you confused the replies to the point no one could keep up
with how you answer my questions. Simply going by the brackets
doesn't show what is really answered and in what order. You're good,
a master of confusion.
Click to expand...

So that question in this thread that was left unanswered the most in
this thread:

"Or is it only OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?"

I knew that you wouldn't answer it! Be a man not a MicroMouse!

I'll give you one more opportunity to reclaim you manhood, because
that's the kind of guy I am!

What is this thread about, Mikey? I accused MS of being a thief though
that has yet to be proven. We both agreed that I was wrong to do this,
because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS infringed on their
patents. MS claims to be hurt by casual copy piracy from their paying
customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to prove that MS's alleged losses due to casual
copying are false; It is up to MS to prove their allegations of casual
copy piracy are in fact true! Why should anyone believe MS's
"Conclusion-Jumping" that has yet to be legally proven, anymore than my
"Conclusion-Jumping" about the InterTrust ruling? Just because MS
claims that casual-copying piracy, does not mean an effin' hill of beans
unless the can legally prove it! Right?

I could claim that you are a thief, but why should anybody believe that
unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's CLAIMS
of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to prove it?

Do you even know what "casual copying" is? You should because I know I
have explained it to you in the past!

"Casual copying is a form of piracy characterized by the sharing of
software between people in a way that infringes on the software's end
user license agreement (EULA)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Now I can count on my hands the number of times that someone has asked
here to share their software with somebody else. What we hear almost
every day, is people wanting to share their software with their self,
[in other words, for their "fair use,"] and that's not even casual
copying even by MS's own definition!

Is the EULA a law to you, Smarty Pants?! Has it written by duly elected
members of the sovereign gov't? ! "Any individual may reproduce a
copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess
the exclusive right to such a use." MS does not have the right to limit
an individual fair use of their software in a contract to begin with!
What can't you get through that thick skull of yours?!

Not to mention that MS's EULA also tries to rewrite Title 17 Chapter 1
Section 117, & their claim that their retail software isn't sold is
totally unconscionable, since you get have a sales receipt to prove
otherwise & at least 2 other legal entities, the wholesaler & the
retailer, have legally owned that copy of software before it was sold to
you and neither one of them were ever licensees of that copy that you
later bought.

But we've been though this over & over again.


So in conclusion, I was wrong for my "Conclusion-Jumping" that MS stole
their DRM from InterTrust. MS's supporters here are wrong for
"Conclusion-Jumping" that there is something illegal about an individual
installing the same copy of retail software on more than one of their
computers. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping" that their paying
customers are "casual copy" pirates!

The only difference between these three examples of "Conclusion-Jumping"
is that the allegations made against MS by InterTrust are actually
before a court to be decided, while MS's & it's supporters allegations
are nothing more than hot air at present!

"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!"
 
Back up *your* opinion with laws and/or court rulings, as I have backed
up my opinion, or admit you are just the fat, lazy, and illogical fool
that I already believe you to be. My guess is that you'll either run
away with your tail between your legs, because I have already shown who
really has the *power* under the Constitution, and it ain't Copyright
owners, or you'll just ramble on about me & my opinion, instead of
trying to back up why your opinion is legally valid.

Put up or runaway? It's your choice!
Click to expand...
Unlike you , Kurt, I have a life and better things to do then waste
time looking up court decisions all day long. You also seems to thinkn
that nothing is legal unless it's written as a law someplace. Which is
incorrect. Many things are legally binding until they are successfully
challenaged in court. You also have a bad habit of mis-interpreting the
very things you do read ( ie..."a" computer meaning more then one
computer, or that somehow install on on more the one computer is a
"Nessacary adaption required for installlation" ), and posting court of
appeals rulling that argue against you. I'm not going to waste anymore
time trying to convince you of the errors in your beliefs

Prehaps you can explain how Autodesk ( Makers of Autocad ) can issue
"Cease and Desist" orders, obtain subpeonas and search warrents, and
enlist the help of local law enforcement in enforcing their EULA? Whcih,
like Microsofts, limits use of their software on a single machine per
license. What rights does Autodesk have that MS doesn't??

David
 
I have no desire in getting into a how can we confuse this thread anymore.
You take my replies out of context and dissect the question rather than
answer the question the way it was intended. I can't really see how your
reconstructed version really follows the way the thread unfolded.
This is the quote where you come to the conclusion I am now trying to
substantiate MS's opinion that casual copying is really
the target of PA. Where do I try to substantiate MS's opinion that casual
copying is really
the target of PA.?
<my quote>
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
<end quote>

<your quote>
Now you try to substantiate MS's opinion that casual copying is really
the target of PA.
<end quote>

Then where I do make the statement quoted below where I should have included
"less attractive to the casual copier" and original purchaser. You choose to
not say anything with regard to the omission.
< my quote>
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.
<end quote>
I have no desire to go back and forth, trying to remember in what order you
answered parts of my question out of context and I replied to the out of
context reply.
I believe it is time to end this impossible thread.

--

Michael Stevens
(e-mail address removed)

Michael said:
No thanks, you confused the replies to the point no one could keep up
with how you answer my questions. Simply going by the brackets
doesn't show what is really answered and in what order. You're good,
a master of confusion.
Click to expand...

So that question in this thread that was left unanswered the most in
this thread:

"Or is it only OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?"

I knew that you wouldn't answer it! Be a man not a MicroMouse!

I'll give you one more opportunity to reclaim you manhood, because
that's the kind of guy I am!

What is this thread about, Mikey? I accused MS of being a thief
though that has yet to be proven. We both agreed that I was wrong to
do this, because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS
infringed on their patents. MS claims to be hurt by casual copy
piracy from their paying customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to prove that MS's alleged losses due to casual
copying are false; It is up to MS to prove their allegations of
casual copy piracy are in fact true! Why should anyone believe MS's
"Conclusion-Jumping" that has yet to be legally proven, anymore than
my "Conclusion-Jumping" about the InterTrust ruling? Just because MS
claims that casual-copying piracy, does not mean an effin' hill of
beans unless the can legally prove it! Right?

I could claim that you are a thief, but why should anybody believe
that unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's
CLAIMS of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to prove it?

Do you even know what "casual copying" is? You should because I know
I have explained it to you in the past!

"Casual copying is a form of piracy characterized by the sharing of
software between people in a way that infringes on the software's end
user license agreement (EULA)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Now I can count on my hands the number of times that someone has asked
here to share their software with somebody else. What we hear almost
every day, is people wanting to share their software with their self,
[in other words, for their "fair use,"] and that's not even casual
copying even by MS's own definition!

Is the EULA a law to you, Smarty Pants?! Has it written by duly
elected members of the sovereign gov't? ! "Any individual may
reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner
does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." MS does not
have the right to limit an individual fair use of their software in a
contract to begin with! What can't you get through that thick skull
of yours?!

Not to mention that MS's EULA also tries to rewrite Title 17 Chapter 1
Section 117, & their claim that their retail software isn't sold is
totally unconscionable, since you get have a sales receipt to prove
otherwise & at least 2 other legal entities, the wholesaler & the
retailer, have legally owned that copy of software before it was sold
to you and neither one of them were ever licensees of that copy that
you later bought.

But we've been though this over & over again.


So in conclusion, I was wrong for my "Conclusion-Jumping" that MS
stole their DRM from InterTrust. MS's supporters here are wrong for
"Conclusion-Jumping" that there is something illegal about an
individual installing the same copy of retail software on more than
one of their computers. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping"
that their paying customers are "casual copy" pirates!

The only difference between these three examples of
"Conclusion-Jumping" is that the allegations made against MS by
InterTrust are actually before a court to be decided, while MS's &
it's supporters allegations are nothing more than hot air at present!

"Or is it only OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?"
Click to expand...
 
Michael said:
I have no desire in getting into a how can we confuse this thread
anymore.
Click to expand...

Bullsh*t! You are about to do nothing else but try to confuse things
more, and whine!
You take my replies out of context and dissect the question
rather than answer the question the way it was intended.
Click to expand...

Tough Sh*t! Actually I did both I took my replies to you out of
context, and tied it together into a coherent whole that left out the
"Bracket-confusion" for you. Then I also posted that same reply in the
context! You chose to reply to neither directly, claiming I am the
Master of your confusion!
I can't
really see how your reconstructed version really follows the way the
thread unfolded.
Click to expand...

That's because you have your own agenda to try to trip me up, whereas I
have been talking about the same thing the whole time,
"Conclusion-Jumping!"
This is the quote where you come to the conclusion I am now trying to
substantiate MS's opinion that casual copying is really
the target of PA.
Click to expand...

Does any of this matter, get back to the effin' topic of this thread!
Where do I try to substantiate MS's opinion that
casual copying is really
the target of PA.?
Click to expand...

You don't, never said you did either, but MS does! I don't have to
disprove MS's claims, it up to them to prove theirs, otherwise they are
no better than me for calling them thieves with out legal proof!
Remember the effin' topic of this thread?!
<my quote>
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
<end quote>

<your quote>
Now you try to substantiate MS's opinion that casual copying is really
the target of PA.
<end quote>
Click to expand...

Is that really all of my reply? Seems like you missed some of my reply.
Having problems with "Cut-N-Paste Confusion" too?! LOL!
$49 billion! The ain't chicken feed! And if casual copying were the
true target of PA as MS claims then the only question that needs to be
ask is, "is this your copy of software," and/or MS could have stopped
selling their software to anonymous people.

It's really MS case that hasn't been substantiated! If this were
"substantiated" then MS would be compensated for their loss through
their insurance companies.

Now you try to substantiate MS's opinon that casual copying is really
the target of PA.
Click to expand...

So what your point?
Then where I do make the statement quoted below where I should have
included "less attractive to the casual copier" and original
purchaser. You choose to not say anything with regard to the omission.
SO?!

< my quote>
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. <end quote>
Click to expand...

I still have no comment, so what's the big deal about that?! There are
no questions here, are there? But how many times have you left
unanswered the MY DIRECT QUESTION TO YOU!

"Or is it only OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?"
I have no desire to go back and forth, trying to remember in what
order you answered parts of my question out of context and I replied
to the out of context reply.
Click to expand...

What?! That's all you have done here!
I believe it is time to end this impossible thread.
Click to expand...

Run away, MicroMouse! But since I'm in such a magnanimous mood, I'll
give yet one more opportunity to redeem your manhood! Ingnore your
"bracket-confused" whining above and reply to the following:

What is this thread about, Mikey? I accused MS of being a thief though
that has yet to be proven. We both agreed that I was wrong to do this,
because InterTrust has yet to legally prove that MS infringed on their
patents. MS claims to be hurt by casual copy piracy from their paying
customers, and that their rationale for PA.

"The goal of Product Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
'casual copying' or 'softlifting.'" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

It's not up to me to prove that MS's alleged losses due to casual
copying are false; It is up to MS to prove their allegations of casual
copy piracy are in fact true! Why should anyone believe MS's
"Conclusion-Jumping" that has yet to be legally proven, anymore than my
"Conclusion-Jumping" about the InterTrust ruling? Just because MS
claims that casual-copying piracy, does not mean an effin' hill of beans
unless the can legally prove it! Right?

I could claim that you are a thief, but why should anybody believe that
unless I can legally prove it? Then why should we believe MS's CLAIMS
of casual-copying piracy, though they have yet to prove it?

Do you even know what "casual copying" is? You should because I know I
have explained it to you in the past!

"Casual copying is a form of piracy characterized by the sharing of
software between people in a way that infringes on the software's end
user license agreement (EULA)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Now I can count on my hands the number of times that someone has asked
here to share their software with somebody else. What we hear almost
every day, is people wanting to share their software with their self,
[in other words, for their "fair use,"] and that's not even casual
copying even by MS's own definition!

Is the EULA a law to you, Smarty Pants?! Has it written by duly elected
members of the sovereign gov't? LOL! "Any individual may reproduce a
copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess
the exclusive right to such a use." MS does not have the right to limit
an individual fair use of their software in a contract to begin with!
What can't you get through that thick skull of yours?!

Not to mention that MS's EULA also tries to rewrite Title 17 Chapter 1
Section 117, & their claim that their retail software isn't sold is
totally unconscionable, since you get have a sales receipt to prove
otherwise & at least 2 other legal entities, the wholesaler & the
retailer, have legally owned that copy of software before it was sold to
you and neither one of them were ever licensees of that copy that you
later bought.

But we've been though this over & over again.

So in conclusion, I was wrong for my "Conclusion-Jumping" that MS stole
their DRM from InterTrust. MS's supporters here are wrong for
"Conclusion-Jumping" that there is something illegal about an individual
installing the same copy of retail software on more than one of their
computers. And MS is wrong for "Conclusion-Jumping" that their paying
customers are "casual copy" pirates!

The only difference between these three examples of "Conclusion-Jumping"
is that the allegations made against MS by InterTrust are actually
before a court to be decided, while MS's & it's supporters allegations
are nothing more than hot air at present!

"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!"
 
"Or is it only OK to question my 'Conclusion-Jumping,' because I don't
happen to agree with you & MS over PA?"
Click to expand...

Kurt:

You must have the patience of a saint to be able to deal with this.
You're never going to get through to the MVPs and other MS apologists.
All the years I've been following the MS newsgroups very few MVPs will
ever say anything or do anything against MS. Maybe they have been
brain-washed, maybe they're afraid of losing their MVP status,
whatever?

Anyway, don't stop being the lone voice. Until MS proves their EULA
in court, (which I believe they're afraid to do) it's only paper or
electronic paper. I wonder.... can someone use electronic paper in
the bathroom? <g>

Regards.
 
The only Court decisions and laws you've posted are the copyright laws
which you have grossly mis-interrupted and a Court of Appels decision whcih
supports my postion, not yours. But, you can't see that. you seem to lack
in reading comprehension. If I were to waste time finding any court
dicisions, you'd just twist them around jut like everything else any has
posted for you.

I know that your going to post some response to this and predicte that I
will "Run with my tail between my legs" rather then respond. Let me save
you the time. This will be my post to YOU.

BTW. John B. Everyone knows you have you head up Kurts ass. So, I won't
bother responding to any of you rdrivel.

David
 
David said:
The only Court decisions and laws you've posted are the copyright
laws which you have grossly mis-interrupted and a Court of Appels
decision whcih supports my postion, not yours.
Click to expand...

Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit wrote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold."
This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap
license, into a software license. Unfortunately with retail software,
it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it.

The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME
of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the
retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either,
but
the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy
by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2 owners
of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the
software.
Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three
times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. LOL! Denying
reality
happened three times! Sounds un-f*ckin'-conscionable to me!

People own every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal
precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the legal status
quo at the present!

Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license too!
Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license said that TV wasn't
sold?!

What law does MS's EULA violate?

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights:
Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or *Adaptation* by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or *adaptation* of that computer program
provided:

(1) that such a new copy or *adaptation* is *created* as an *essential*
step in the *utilization* of the computer program *in* *conjunction*
with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, *or*

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional *Installation* by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another *installation* provided:

(1) that such a new *installation* is *made* as a *necessary* step in
*making* *use* of the software *together* *with* *a* *previously*
*unknown* computer and that it is used in no other manner, *or*

"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"

*Installation* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=adaptation

*made* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=created

*necessary* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=essential

*making* *use* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=utilize

*together* *with* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=conjunction

*a* *previously* *unknown* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861582871

*or* -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=or

What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon would even try to
argue otherwise!

MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their One Computer
nonsense in the privacy of any individual's home in a real court of law.
Why? Because a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that "Any
individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a"fair use";
the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Until there is some definitive legal precedent that clears this all up,
one
way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what
they can and can not do with the retail software that they was legally
*SOLD* to them by the previous owner of that software?!
But, you can't see
that. you seem to lack in reading comprehension. If I were to waste
time finding any court dicisions, you'd just twist them around jut
like everything else any has posted for you.
Click to expand...

Can't find any, huh?! ROFL! But what you don't comprehend is that I
found all my evidence on my own. Unlike you, I'm my own man, I didn't
wait for someone to find it for me, and drop it in my lap!
I know that your going to post some response to this and predicte
that I will "Run with my tail between my legs" rather then respond.
Click to expand...

Dude, you have already runaway, you just can't admit it to yourself!
Twice you've runaway from your own words in this thread, by trying to
shift the focus of all your nonsense on me, and away from your own
silly, legally-unsupportable words! Predict! LOL! Why would I have to
predict what you've already proven twice over?! ROFL!!!
Let me save you the time. This will be my post to YOU.
Click to expand...

You mean you'll tell everybody that I'm wrong with nothing to back it up
again?! LOL! No effin' big surprise in that!
BTW. John B. Everyone knows you have you head up Kurts ass. So, I
won't bother responding to any of you rdrivel.
Click to expand...

Because you're just such a fat, lazy, illogical, miserable excuse for a
post-birth abortion! :)

But I should be a little more kinder & gentler to the mentally &
physically challenged, such as the likes of you, and since I'm trying to
be more compassionate, I'm gonna let you try to go three for three! ;-)

So here is your opinion:

"MS can put any restriction on their software that they damn well feel
like for any reason that they feel like."

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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!"
 
Back
Top