ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?

[kurttrail]

Your "integrity" tells you that it's fine to renege upon an agreement
into which you've freely and voluntarily entered?

No, contract law. There are perfectly valid and legal reasons to breech
a contract or certain term of a contract.

But you don't understand that, as your "corporate rights uber alles"
mentality sees a contract as a law unto itself, inviolable, whereas, in
reality, it is just contractual claims, and when disputed by the second
party, me, it is up to the first party, MS, to sue me and prove by the
preponderance of the evidence that my breech is damaging them in some
way.

In the over 13 years of knowing that individuals have disputed their One
Computer term, MS, nor any other colluding member of the BSA for that
FACT, has yet to sue, let alone convince a court to enforce the One
Computer term on one private non-commercial individual.

And as the Supreme Court said in the Betamax case, "Any individual may
reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does
not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

They didn't limit it to the narrow view of timeshifting in this
statement of FACT! The copyright owner {MS} doesn have the right to
limit my "fair use." And until there is some SUPREME COURT precedent
that says that a copyright owner can shrinkwrap license away my right to
"fair use, it is a matter of integrity for me to protect MY right to MY
copy of software in MY home!

I'm glad I will
never have to do business with you.

LOL! You're in business?!

Does your mortgage company know
that you feel this way about contracts?

If any term is unreasonable or unconscionable, I have every legal right
to breech it, under the law!

That is not my "feeling," it is the way contract law works in the US.

And don't try throw "fair
use" into the discussion; it's not even relevant.

LOL! If YOU say so! But that is all you do is say so, yet you do not
even try to demonstrate it.

But it is since you are the one that is saying it that it is a matter of
not valuing YOUR opinion of integrity for some one to "fairly use" their
copy of software.

I've never claimed that "corporate rights outweigh an individual's
rights."

It is implicit in all of your arguments about MS and their EULA over
that of an individual's rights in their home with their copy of
copyrighted material!

Why are you trying to change the subject?

I expanded it a bit, I didn't change it.

Can't you ever
stick to the point, instead of arguing semantics or throwing up weak
straw-man arguments?

LOL! Look at you arguing earlier about the inviolability of the EULA.
It is not a law unto itself! One doesn't have to lack integrity to
breech terms one feels are unconscionable or violates the law!

In the case of ProCD v. Zeidenberg, a case where a database shrinkwrap
license was breeched for a COMMERIAL USE, the judge even acknowledged
the FACT that contracts can be legally breeched!

"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

"Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses"
(which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a
subject for another day."

So the same judge also admits that contracts and licenses may be
different when it comes to copyright law. Which brings us to "fair
use!"

Again, "fair use" doesn't come into play.

LOL! Again, if YOU say so! But you can not even explain why!
Repeating something over and over again as a means to convince others of
what you cannot honestly & logically convince them of is the Goebels
method of propaganda!

http://tinyurl.com/hhjj - 314 times
http://snipurl.com/4x5d - 87 times
http://snipurl.com/d81h - 137 times

It is you passion for repetition that earned you the title of MicroNazi
in my MVP Hall of Shame!

http://www.microscum.com/bruce/


And yes "fair use" does come into play, since the EULA's One Computer
rules is in effect a means to rewrite copyright law and Supreme Court
legal precedent!

The copyright owner is trying to limit my right to "fair use" after the
FACT of the sale!

The
EULA in no way interferes with "fair use," as it is defined by law.

"Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include -"

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

Private non-commercial individual use.

"In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being
a primary indicator of fair use." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Of course public commercial use is sometimes legally allowable under
"fair use." Private non-commercial use in the home would be the most
flexible form of "fair use."

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"

"In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material
copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial product.

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and"

Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
entire movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an
entire
copyrighted work as a "fair use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by the
indivdiual, thereby the copyright owner has already gotten a "fair
return" for the creative labor of the author(s).

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

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

I have a right to my interpretation unless the copyright owner
disagrees, sues me, and wins, so the EULA is interfere with my perfectly
valid interpretation of "fair use," ESPECIALLY since MS introduced PA,
as a from of EULA control.

(But you already know that, and just use the term in another lame
attempt to change the subject.)

I KNOW no such thing, and I think I've explain why I don't know any such
thing! And you have NOT shown one credible shread of anything, other
than mere repetition, the "fair use" doesn't come into play when it
comes to MS's One Computer post-sale shrink-wrap license term!

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

 

[Stephen]

Ignorance is not Mircosoft's fault. Besides it is free men and women who are
*choosing* Microsoft. It's what people want.

Linux advocates woud claim otherwise - take it up with them.

Tell that to Steve Jobs.

 

[Stephen]

He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think it is an
issue of his integrity. He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the home] and
right to privacy verses your point of view which is how the law and and
business contracting server corporate profit and interest and how best to
defeat human "rights" should they interfere.

Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and I'm only
doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human rights,
especially that of the individual in her or his home should be more than
respected, they should be revered.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

My immediate impression upon reading the reply was "closure" is
enclosure. Enclosure is the common term for the PC case.

Well, the word "enclosure" may occasionally be used for the case,
but it's not *the* common term.

But you're probably right. I can't think of what else he might
have meant.

Don't know why this was even mentioned as enclosures are not
detectible hardware, nor do they participate in any internal
function
of the PC.

All true, except that the requirement for an OEM system is to
affix the Certificate of Authenticity to the case. I'm not a
lawyer, but, absurd as it sounds, I think that requirement might
make it arguable in court that it's therefore the case that makes
it the same computer or not.

 

[Stephen]

He's talking about crime in the narrow sense. e.g. In Canada, it is not a
crime nor even an offence to copy music CDs within the home and distribute
said copies to other members of the very same household - it's called "fair
use" here, regardless of any contract printed on the original CD's seal.

 

[kurttrail]

Lighten up guys..

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
for other uses please see Crime (disambiguation)

"A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or
moral law. In the narrow sense, a crime is a violation of the
criminal law. For example, most traffic violations or breach of
contracts are not crimes in a legal sense."

I was talking in the narrow sense of the Law with a capital "L".
Installing software on more than one computer in NOT a crime under the
Law!

And if you had people calling you a thief, a pirate or a criminal,
without any proof or legal precedent at all, over and over again, for
just expressing your opinion, I doubt you'd be all that light about it
either, especially coming from someone you respect.

I saw nothing in your post that indicated that you were just making
light of it all, Mike. But then again, I didn't jump down your throat
either, I just emphasized the word you used, and ask you to explain
yourself, which you did.

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

 

[Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)]

It is but one small step from distributing to family members in a household
to friends a block away, to sharing with persons unknown on a P2P service..

Allowing the mechanism to enable distribution to family leaves the door open
for distribution to anybody..

http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/...a&lid=Software piracy sails on in CanadaWhile we are not anything like as bad as people in Asia, the above showsthat a "ce ne fait rien" attitude by Canada goes some way to promotingpiracy in that it doesn't legislate effectively against it.. but the timewill come when Canada will..It is a situation similar to traffic speed limits.. if, when a limit wasimposed, everybody abided by it, the police would not have speed cameras,and we wouldn't get caught.. but life and people are never so simple, and asa result, we get caught..I have an issue with record and movie companies in that I don't see any harmin freely distributing material that the aforementioned companies have nointention of re-releasing.. where is the harm in that?.. it is unfortunate,however, that users of P2P services go well beyond that..The arguments for and against go on regardless, and as long as people chooseto ignore the morality issue, companies who have an issue with what they seeas piracy will continue to look for ways to stop it..--Mike HallMVP - Windows Shell/Userhttp://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm"Stephen" <[email protected]> wrote in messageHe's talking about crime in the narrow sense. e.g. In Canada, it is not a> crime nor even an offence to copy music CDs within the home and distribute> said copies to other members of the very same household - it's called"fair> use" here, regardless of any contract printed on the original CD's seal.>>

 

[Stephen]

"Allowing" ?? It's not a matter of "allowing", it is a matter of rights. We
have the RIGHT to do that in our homes - it's called "fair use". And it *is*
a big step to go to sharing stuff *outside* the home because that infringes
on copyright here. A funny quirk in Canada is that while we have the right
to download as we will *into* our homes from P2P services, we *do not* have
the right to UPLOAD copyrighted material from our homes to P2P services.

So while I can make copies of a book, say, or some other piece of
copyrighted intellectual property and share it with members of my family
within my household, I do not have the right to make copies for people
outside the home nor the right to sell copies on the street or in a market.

There's a line drawn I guess, and it is the front door of the private home.
I think it is reasonable.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

No, contract law. There are perfectly valid and legal reasons to breech
a contract or certain term of a contract.

Granted, but name a single court decision that has found found any
"valid and legal" reasons to void Microsoft's EULA. You can't.

But you don't understand that, as your "corporate rights uber alles"
mentality sees a contract as a law unto itself, inviolable, whereas, in
reality, it is just contractual claims, and when disputed by the second
party, me, it is up to the first party, MS, to sue me and prove by the
preponderance of the evidence that my breech is damaging them in some
way.

In the over 13 years of knowing that individuals have disputed their One
Computer term, MS, nor any other colluding member of the BSA for that
FACT, has yet to sue, let alone convince a court to enforce the One
Computer term on one private non-commercial individual.

Which is simply because doing so would be a PR nightmare for the
companies in question, and produce little or nothing of profit for them.
Remember, these are businesses; they're not particularly concerns with
the "principle of the matter," as you claim to be. Their concern is
their bottom line. If and when it becomes in their best interest to
prosecute individuals, they'll no doubt do so. Don't make the false
conclusion that just because they haven't done something yet, it means
that they can't or won't do so, at sometime in the future. That's very
poor logic, indeed.

And as the Supreme Court said in the Betamax case, "Any individual may
reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does
not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

This case is no more relevant to software today, then it was the first
time you brought it up.

They didn't limit it to the narrow view of timeshifting in this
statement of FACT! The copyright owner {MS} doesn have the right to
limit my "fair use." And until there is some SUPREME COURT precedent
that says that a copyright owner can shrinkwrap license away my right to
"fair use, it is a matter of integrity for me to protect MY right to MY
copy of software in MY home!

And the EULA doesn't interfere with "fair use." Remember, *you*
voluntarily agreed to abide by the terms of the EULA when you installed
the software. If you don't like the terms, use something else.

If any term is unreasonable or unconscionable, I have every legal right
to breech it, under the law!

If you can prove in court that the terms are "unconscionable" or in
violation of other law, yes. "Unreasonable" doesn't really apply, I
don't think. Why would you sign a contract that you felt was
unreasonable? Or does it somehow magically turn unreasonable when you
no longer like the terms? You can't breech a contract just because
you've changed your mind; not without expecting consequences.

That is not my "feeling," it is the way contract law works in the US.




LOL! If YOU say so! But that is all you do is say so, yet you do not
even try to demonstrate it.

There's nothing to "demonstrate." I've repeatedly pointed out the
definition of fair use, as defined by copyright law. But for those who
haven't seen the facts pointed out to you before:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Release date: 2004-04-30

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.

Just exactly where, in the above text, does it state that installing
multiple copies of a software product on multiple computers in one's
home is not an infringement of the copyright? In fact, an unauthorized
second installation would clearly fail the both the (1) and (3) test.
More reading:

Copyright & Fair Use Overview
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html

It is implicit in all of your arguments about MS and their EULA over
that of an individual's rights in their home with their copy of
copyrighted material!

Not at all. Your inept and inaccurate inference notwithstanding, my
primary concern has always been about someone's voluntarily entering
into a contract and then reneging on it for no better reason than it's
convenient to do so. While I have no doubt that the current laws
support my position, I'm much more worried about a contract-breaker's
lack of integrity and trustworthiness. That fact that you find personal
integrity of so little value is just further evidence of the decline of
our culture.

LOL! Look at you arguing earlier about the inviolability of the EULA.
It is not a law unto itself!

Not so. You really should try arguing with what I've actually said,
rather than deliberately misinterpreting and then arguing with what you
imagine to be my position. I've never claimed that the EULA is a law.
I have pointed out that, until proven otherwise, it is a legally
enforceable contract. There's a vast difference.

One doesn't have to lack integrity to
breech terms one feels are unconscionable or violates the law!

In the case of ProCD v. Zeidenberg, a case where a database shrinkwrap
license was breeched for a COMMERIAL USE, the judge even acknowledged
the FACT that contracts can be legally breeched!

"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

Once again, as you've done this before, thanks for supporting my
position by pointing out this decision.

"Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses"
(which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a
subject for another day."

And that day has yet to come. Until then, normal legal practice holds
that the contract is valid until proven otherwise. Had you the "courage
of your convictions," you'd challenge the EULA in court, just as a
matter of principle. Instead, you hide behind the "Microsoft has never
sued me, so I must be right" fallacy. You make a lot of defiant noise,
but only because you know your safe form the big, bad corporation that
doesn't take you seriously enough to bother with.

So the same judge also admits that contracts and licenses may be
different when it comes to copyright law. Which brings us to "fair
use!"




LOL! Again, if YOU say so! But you can not even explain why!
Repeating something over and over again as a means to convince others of
what you cannot honestly & logically convince them of is the Goebels
method of propaganda!

Actually, I've pointed it out repeatedly, but why disillusion you.

It is you passion for repetition that earned you the title of MicroNazi
in my MVP Hall of Shame!

http://www.microscum.com/bruce/

Ah, yes. Your ultimate and invariable fall-back position. Whenever
you're proven wrong, the name-calling and personal attacks come out.
Once again, thanks for admitting defeat.

And yes "fair use" does come into play, since the EULA's One Computer
rules is in effect a means to rewrite copyright law and Supreme Court
legal precedent!

No, it isn't. Reread Title 17:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Release date: 2004-04-30

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies.....

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 117

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

Release date: 2004-04-30

(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 EULA is, in fact, perfectly in compliance with the law, as written.

The copyright owner is trying to limit my right to "fair use" after the
FACT of the sale!

Not at all. First of all, there's no "fair use" limitation, as proven
above, and secondly, this doesn't happen "after the sale,", and thirdly,
even if it were "after the sale," it wouldn't matter. Reread *all* of
ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

"Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include -"

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

Private non-commercial individual use.

Non-commercial, but not non-profit. By installing the same license on
multiple computers, the computer user is "making a profit" in the sense
that he's not expending funds to buy additional licenses. Remember, "A
penny saved is a penny earned."

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"

"In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material
copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial product.

Relevance?


"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and"

Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
entire movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an
entire
copyrighted work as a "fair use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Nonsense. You've continually failed to demonstrate how that old
Betamax case could possibly apply to computer software. An complete
copy of a copyrighted works for no other reason than financial gain is
clearly a not intended as allowable use.

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by the
indivdiual, thereby the copyright owner has already gotten a "fair
return" for the creative labor of the author(s).

"Fair return" by whose definition? Which court has decided that a
software manufacturer need only be paid once, for a single copy?

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

Be that as it may, you've failed to how it supports your position. I'd
say it does doesn't even come close. Hoping to distract people by throw
in tons of irrelevant material? Disagreements are decided upon the
merits, relevance, and quality of the arguments made, not on the sheer
bulk of irrelevant material added to pad the argument. Trying to wear
me down?

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

All of which proves my point. Again. Thank you.

I have a right to my interpretation unless the copyright owner
disagrees, sues me, and wins, so the EULA is interfere with my perfectly
valid interpretation of "fair use," ESPECIALLY since MS introduced PA,
as a from of EULA control.

You have a right to your own opinion, certainly. And as much as I
dislike it, you also have a right to express that opinion, and to work
to over-turn a law you find unjust. That's not what you're doing,
however. You're misrepresenting the facts and laws of the matter, and
advising people to do as they please, without regard to the
consequences. I do and will continue to argue that you're not justified
in trying to get others to violate the law, just because you think it's
safe to do do. If you are going to advocate such actions, you should at
least tell people the complete truth, that they will be acting contrary
to current law, and that what you're advising them to do could, someday,
as unlikely as it is, put them at risk. I especially take umbrage at
your encouragement of the violating of agreements/contracts when you've
no better excuse than that the terms of the agreement are no longer
convenient.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[kurttrail]

It is but one small step from distributing to family members in a
household to friends a block away, to sharing with persons unknown on
a P2P
service..

LOL! And cigarettes is but one small step from smoking pot!

And smoking pot is one small step from smoking crack!

What a specious argument!

Owning a gun is one small step away from shooting someone!

See, in the US, owning a gun is legal, but shooting someone is not,
except it seems in Texas and Florida. And I live in Florida!

Terrible argument, Mike.

But in the US, we also have the concept of Free Public Libraries, which
are run by the local government for the expressed purpose of sharing
printed copyrighted material with the public. Hasn't hurt the
publishing industry one little bit.

While I agree that file-sharing is wrong, there is absolutely no
evidense that it hurts any copyrighted material market.

The Music industry was hurt more by a horrible 3 to five year period of
music releases just as file sharing was getting going.

Star War 3 (or 6 depending on relativity) was on file sharing from day
one of its release, and yet it opened to the biggest four day period in
movie history.

The Software piracy rate was much high in 1994 than it's been since
file-sharing hit the bigtime.

I still think its wrong under US Copyright Law, but I have yet to be
convinced that it is the biggest threat to the copyrighted material
industry. I'm more of the opinion that the industry is their own worst
enemy, by making it appear that their customers are their enemy!

Allowing the mechanism to enable distribution to family leaves the
door open for distribution to anybody..

Always has. I've shared books with friends, I made cassette tapes of my
records for friends when I was a kid! Public Libraries have yet to kill
the Publishing Industry!

The Internet has yet to kill off the local newspaper!

And MS still has its billions of dollars and has been killed of by
filesharing.

http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/...a&lid=Software piracy sails on in CanadaWhile
we are not anything like as bad as people in Asia, the above
showsthat a "ce ne fait rien" attitude by Canada goes some way to
promotingpiracy in that it doesn't legislate effectively against it..
but the timewill come when Canada will..It is a situation similar to
traffic speed limits.. if, when a limit wasimposed, everybody abided
by it, the police would not have speed cameras,and we wouldn't get
caught.. but life and people are never so simple, and asa result, we
get caught..I have an issue with record and movie companies in that I
don't see any harmin freely distributing material that the
aforementioned companies have nointention of re-releasing.. where is
the harm in that?.. it is unfortunate,however, that users of P2P
services go well beyond that..The arguments for and against go on
regardless, and as long as people chooseto ignore the morality issue,
companies who have an issue with what they seeas piracy will continue
to look for ways to stop it..

Business Software Alliance (BSA) Global Software Piracy Rate:

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004*
49 46 43 40 38 36 37 40 39 36 35

* - 1st 2 years using IDC methodology.

Microsoft first introduced PA in 2000 with Microsoft Office 2000 Service
Pack 1. The piracy rate had been declining since 1994 as more and more
PCs were sold to people for Home Use. And since Microsoft first
introduce PA the piracy rate has been fluctuating up & down. For
calculating the piracy rate in 2003, the BSA changed its methodology, so
that drop is a result of that change. Mike Newton, campaigns relations
manager for the BSA, at the time of the release of that report said,
"Right now we feel that piracy rates are on the up."

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000002.php

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Bruce Chambers wrote:


He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think it is an
issue of his integrity.

I'd have to disagree with that. He's taken the position that it's OK
for someone to freely and voluntarily enter into a contract, and then to
later renege on that contract merely because abiding by its terms is no
longer convenient. That is a matter of integrity.

He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the home] and
right to privacy

No, not really. He's just using that as a distraction. How can one's
"fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which one
voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is agreeing that
one's "fair use" isn't abridged.

... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
business contracting server corporate profit and interest

My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my position.

and how best to
defeat human "rights" should they interfere.

Huh?


Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and I'm only
doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human rights,
especially that of the individual in her or his home should be more than
respected, they should be revered.

And I'd certainly not argue with that. I simply don't see how it could
possibly be relevant. I can't understand how abiding by the terms of a
contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an attack on either
human rights or privacy. If you don't like the terms of a contract,
don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If the contract accompanies
the use of software, simply use a software product with whose license
one agrees.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[Stephen]

Bruce Chambers wrote:


He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think
it is an issue of his integrity.

I'd have to disagree with that. He's taken the position that it's OK
for someone to freely and voluntarily enter into a contract, and
then to later renege on that contract merely because abiding by its
terms is no longer convenient. That is a matter of integrity.

He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the
home] and right to privacy

No, not really. He's just using that as a distraction. How can
one's "fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which
one voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is
agreeing that one's "fair use" isn't abridged.

... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
business contracting server corporate profit and interest

My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my
position.

and how best to
defeat human "rights" should they interfere.

Huh?


Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and
I'm only doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human
rights, especially that of the individual in her or his home should
be more than respected, they should be revered.

And I'd certainly not argue with that. I simply don't see how it
could possibly be relevant. I can't understand how abiding by the
terms of a contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an
attack on either human rights or privacy. If you don't like the
terms of a contract,
don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If the contract
accompanies the use of software, simply use a software product with
whose license
one agrees.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

But is the EULA a contract when it is installed on a home computer in the
home? I think that is his point. Sure it looks like a contract and has all
the wording, but within the home it may have absolutely no relevence and the
clicking OK is absolutely not binding nor an expression of intent to honour
any contract because it all happens with copyrighted material *within* the
home.

Here, I can copy books and distrubute them to family members quite legally.
Should a music CD come in a sealed jewel case and should that seal have a
contract on it saying "If you break this seal you agree.. blah blah ", it is
in no way binding should I break the seal nor is it an expression of my
intent to enter into a contract. I have fair use rights in my home to copy
and distribute freely within my home. I think that is reasonable and those
rights should be protected completely. I can't send copies outside the home,
I can't sell copies at the market. But my home is, or at least should be,
sacrosanct regardless.

The powers that be should only be allowed to violate my home's privacy over
pressing issues, say I'm holding a person hostage or running a theft
big-screen TV theft ring or something grievous crime. But over a matter such
as sharing retail stuff, copyrighted material etc. within a home, the state
or those using the power of the state should have no recourse. You agree
with that don't you?

 

[Alias]

All true, except that the requirement for an OEM system is to
affix the Certificate of Authenticity to the case. I'm not a
lawyer, but, absurd as it sounds, I think that requirement might
make it arguable in court that it's therefore the case that makes
it the same computer or not.

Good reason to keep the sticker somewhere else or you can never change
your case unless, of course, you have no integrity or moral values and
change your case without asking MS!

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

But is the EULA a contract when it is installed on a home computer in the
home?

Certainly it is. Does a dog cease to become a dog when it crosses the
threshold? The "home" is no magic sanctuary where all outside laws are
abnegated. It's just as illegal to commit murder inside one's home as
it is to do so on the side, is it not? (No, I'm not equating copyright
infringement with murder, just making a simple example.)

I think that is his point. Sure it looks like a contract and has all
the wording, but within the home it may have absolutely no relevence and the
clicking OK is absolutely not binding nor an expression of intent to honour
any contract because it all happens with copyrighted material *within* the
home.

If you sign a contract to purchase a car, can you stop making payments
once you've parked the car in your garage, and still keep the car? If
you sign a contract for rent, but then don't pay it, can you continue to
live in that house indefinitely?

Here, I can copy books and distrubute them to family members quite legally.

Remind me to never publish any books in Canada. If I expend the effort
to produce something like that, I'm not going to want it just given away
without recompense.

Should a music CD come in a sealed jewel case and should that seal have a
contract on it saying "If you break this seal you agree.. blah blah ", it is
in no way binding should I break the seal nor is it an expression of my
intent to enter into a contract. I have fair use rights in my home to copy
and distribute freely within my home. I think that is reasonable and those
rights should be protected completely. I can't send copies outside the home,
I can't sell copies at the market. But my home is, or at least should be,
sacrosanct regardless.

The powers that be should only be allowed to violate my home's privacy over
pressing issues, say I'm holding a person hostage or running a theft
big-screen TV theft ring or something grievous crime. But over a matter such
as sharing retail stuff, copyrighted material etc. within a home, the state
or those using the power of the state should have no recourse. You agree
with that don't you?

In principle, yes, but not entirely, and certainly not without
qualification. You're oversimplifying. I would say that what an
individual does within the confines of his own home is his own business,
so long as no else is harmed, and no one else's rights are trampled
upon. By making and distributing copies of copyrighted materials,
rather than paying for them, you are, in affect, denying the copyright
holder the just "fruits of his labor." Are you employed? Do you work
for nothing, or do you expect to be paid for your efforts? Do you think
you're unreasonable because you expect a weekly paycheck?



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[Alias]

Ignorance is not Mircosoft's fault. Besides it is free men and women who are
*choosing* Microsoft. It's what people want.

Sure they are. The go to a store to buy a computer and most of them are
Linux boxes, right?

Linux advocates woud claim otherwise - take it up with them.

They're wrong. Also, most people have been using Windows for a long time
and aren't interested in embarking on a learning curve. Most people just
want to use their computers, not figure out *how* to use it.

Tell that to Steve Jobs.

He won't return my calls ( :

Alias

 

[Tim.T]

I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems incurred
doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to this even with an
OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or not it IS necessary. For
example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate it was
limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS should
realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just
because they do it often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin
pirate! Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the cause of
the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as the unlikely
event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS "XP compliant". Yes,
yes as long as you buy your stuff from the Windows Catalog lol

I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.

Tim

 

[kurttrail]

Good reason to keep the sticker somewhere else or you can never change
your case unless, of course, you have no integrity or moral values and
change your case without asking MS!

Alias

I think I gonna send MS an email everytime I wipe my ass!

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Sure they are. The go to a store to buy a computer and most of them are
Linux boxes, right?

I don't know how *you* make your purchase decisions, but when I, or any
other adult that I've ever known, find a shop that doesn't sell what I'm
looking for, I simply take my business elsewhere. I invariably find a
business willing to provide the product and/or service that I want. Do
you always leave your purchasing decisions to the staff of the first
store you walk into?

They're wrong. Also, most people have been using Windows for a long time
and aren't interested in embarking on a learning curve. Most people just
want to use their computers, not figure out *how* to use it.

So it's Microsoft's fault that "most people," according to you, are
lazy? You're making no sense. Which is it? Are anonymous sales clerks
forcing people to buy Windows, or are consumers actually able to buy
something else, but just too lazy?



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[Stephen]

Is a law a law if it is repealed? Is a contract a contract if it is usurped
by the householder's rights?

For one thing, the EULA is not signed [ Actually, the householder, on the
other hand, usually has a SALES slip to prove PURCHASE]. And the
arrangements for the payment on the car are business arrangements one makes
with institutions outside the home. Once the car is in the backyard garage
the owner can do as she or he pleases with the darn thing as long as she or
he pays for it.

Your contract with the publisher may prevent you from disallowing them to
sell copies in Canada. Sharing among family members is not 'giving it away'
.... They bought a copy for themselves.

Well, at least you agree with me in principle even though it is not
entirely.

Have a day Mr. Chambers. You can reply, but I'm deeking out of this thread.
Don't read anything into that other than I'm tired and should be getting on
to other things.

 

[Alias]

I don't know how *you* make your purchase decisions, but when I, or
any other adult that I've ever known, find a shop that doesn't sell what
I'm looking for, I simply take my business elsewhere. I invariably find
a business willing to provide the product and/or service that I want.
Do you always leave your purchasing decisions to the staff of the first
store you walk into?






So it's Microsoft's fault that "most people," according to you, are
lazy? You're making no sense. Which is it? Are anonymous sales clerks
forcing people to buy Windows, or are consumers actually able to buy
something else, but just too lazy?

Man, you're dense. IE had 95+% of the browser market. Now it has 62%
because someone developed Firefox that works better than IE and the
price is definitely right. And, there isn't much of a learning curve to
switch.

When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS, needs
no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through and
cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS has a
monopoly. Do you understand that?

It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of Windows
users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose from and
makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and pirate their
software.

Alias