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

[kurttrail]

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

When MS exercises its due diligence in protecting its EULA terms in a
court of law, then I will. It is not up to me, under contract law to
sue MS to invalidate its terms. The onus is on MS to sue to protect its
terms, and get a court to enforce them.

Just because MS doesn't have the balls to take me, or any other private
non-commercial user to court to enforce its rules, in no way means that
there terms are legally enforceable.

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.

Boo Hoo! Don't cry for me Redmontina!

Doesn't seem to be bothering the Music Industry all that much, suing
individuals over file-sharing.

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.

A court would not accept that as a valid excuse for MS not exercising
its legal responsibility to exercise due diligence in enforcing its EULA
terms in a court of law.

And I suspect if they tried that tact a court would definitely rule in
favor of a motion of summary judgment to dismiss MS case against an
individual. That is, if MS ever grows the balls to live up to its due
diligence responsibilities under the law!

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

It is relevant to all Copyrighted works! They could have narrowly said
that any individual can time-shift video content for a "fair use, that
no video content copyright owner possesses the exclusive right to such a
use. BUT THEY DIDN'T!

They said it that broadly because it was one of the main rationales for
why the VCR was an infringement.

Read it again! See how broadly the Supreme Court stated it!

"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 could hardly have written that statement more broadly, more
all-encompassing!

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.

No after I took the product home, long after the sale was done, I was
confronted with commercial use terms. Since I didn't purchase the
software for a commercial use, I feel no more bound by them than the Ten
Commandments prohibition on coveting.

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.

The thing is, under contract law I don't have to prove ANYTHING unless
I'm sued by the contractor. All I need to do is breech the terms! Then
it is up to the contactor to sue me, and prove by the preponderance of
the evidence that I breech the terms, that they have lost something of
material value resulting from my breech. And then I can counter that,
by proving the unconscionability of the term or terms in my defense! If
I'm never sued, I just go on my merry way!

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.

I already explained it to you at the bottom of my previous post. Unlike
you, I really don't like to repeat myself unnecessarily!

More reading:

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

Not at all.

LOL! If you say so! But I doubt any rational human being that isn't a
corporate suck up is believing you denial.

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.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

What you can't comprehend is that there are perfectly valid reasons
under the law to breech the terms of a contract. That is why there is
NO LAW that makes breeching a contract illegal in and of 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.

If you agree that it isn't then acceptance alone is not a valid reason
to say it lacks integrity to breech a term you disagree with. To me it
would be a matter of a lack of integrity to follow terms one believes
are unconscionable, just because you once agreed to it!

I have pointed out that, until proven otherwise, it is a legally
enforceable contract. There's a vast difference.

LOL! Only a court can determine to enforce a contract! That's why we
have courts to decide contract disputes! If MS decides not sue me when
they know I have breeched a EULA of theirs, then their contract is not
legally enforceable on me.

But there you go again, implying the inviolability of the EULA again! I
love it when you contradict yourself!

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

I didn't. I claim that MS's EULA is unconscionable. It is now up to MS
to sue me or shut up!

Don't you love the over 13 years of silence on MS's part?! Their
silence speaks volumes!

And that day has yet to come.

Because MS and the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust are
too chickensh*t to put the EULA's where their mouths are!

Until then, normal legal practice holds
that the contract is valid until proven otherwise.

The Zeidenberg decision doesn't say that. Only a court can decide if a
specific contract is enforceable.

Had you the
"courage of your convictions," you'd challenge the EULA in court,
just as a matter of principle.

LOL! Then the burden of proof would be on me. And under the law, I
don't have to prove that my breech is legal, unless sued by the
contractor, and then they [MS] would bear most of the burden of proof.

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.

13 years and silence! All MS would have to do is sue one private
non-commercial individual over breech of the One Computer term, and
convince a court.

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

LOL! Please! I love it when you try to disillusion me with distorted
realities!

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.

LOL! Just showing why you earned your dishonor. Repetition is your
best friend.

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.....

Sections 107 throught 122 would be all the LIMITATIONS that copyright
law places on the exclusive right of COPYRIGHT OWNERS, like MS!

Boy, are you dense or what?!

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.

LOL! No, its not!

117 is saying it is not infringement install an ADDITIONAL copy of
softare on A machine. "A" meaning one thing not previously know.

That is say Additional adaptations presumes at least on previous
adaptation or in layman's term at least one previous adaption installed
on a computer that would already be a know machine!

But again, Section 117 is a LIMITATION on the COPYRIGHT OWNER, not the
owner of a copy of software.

But you have to confuse that fact totally!

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

These are the number of times of you repeating total bullsh*t!

You have yet to show where it is a violation of Copyright Law to install
software on more than one computer. All you have is shown repeatedly
your purposeful misreading of the law.

Not at all. First of all, there's no "fair use" limitation, as proven
above,

Repeated but not demonstrated.

and secondly, this doesn't happen "after the sale,",

Sure does! EULA acceptance happens doing the install process, LONG
after the sale! Another example of you having to distort reality!

and
thirdly, even if it were "after the sale," it wouldn't matter. Reread
*all* of ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

I did. It is about commercial use terms of a commercial database, not
about the private non-commercial use of copyrighted software! But had
Zeidneburg just made copies for his own use, instead of selling the
copies as his own product, I doubt the would have ever been a ProCD
case!

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."

One making a profit, by buying buying software at the price of hundreds
of dollars! Twist reality! Where does Section 107 promise the
copyright owner to sell a copy of the copyrighted material for every
device it is used on?

Relevance?

That I "have a stronger case of fair use if the material copied is from
a published work than an unpublished work."

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.

Here I will repeat myself!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

In this statement of FACT, the Supreme Court stated it as broadly as
possible. Why was that Bruce? Because they saw the FACT as the main
foundation as to why a VCR was a legal device since its main purpose was
to allow people to copy TV programs.

By saying "COPYRIGHTED WORK" they weren't just limiting this fact to a
specific kind of copyrighted work.

“They could hardly have written that statement more broadly, more
all-encompassing!”

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

"Fair return" as in it would be easy to prove, by normal business
standards, that MS has gotten way more than a "fair return" on its
Windows monopoly!

Be that as it may, you've failed to how it supports your position. I'd
say it does doesn't even come close.

Luckily you aren't a judge.

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?

Just because you don't understand its relevance only shows that you and
too dense to see reality.

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

LOL! I'm still waiting for the copyright owner to disagree with me by
suing me!

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.

BLAH! BLAH ! BLAH!

You accuse me of doing what I have clearly demonstrated that you have!

You twist reality by calling limitations on the copyright owner actual
limitations on the owner of a copy!

You twist reality by assuming that under "fair use" MS is guaranteed to
sell a copy of software for every device it is used on!

You twist reality by trying to shift the legal burden of proof onto me,
when under the law it is up to the contractor and/or the copyright
owner!

You twist reality when you say you imply that the Supreme Court means a
specific type of copyrighted material when it says so unspecifically a
“COPYRIGHTED WORK!”

You twist reality when you say that MS’s EULA terms are not post sale
terms!

You distort reality when you say that a specific EULA term is
enforceable, when it was meant that generally a contract is enforceable,
and then gives exceptions to that general rule. It is in the exceptions
where a court is needed to decided every specific contract dispute!

You distort so much, that I can’t keep up with it all!

But I’ll leave you on this note.

SCO CLAIMS IBM has breeched its UNIX license. Is it enforceable just
because SCO CLAIMS IBM breeched the UNIX license, or is it up to SCO to
prove the breech by the preponderance of the evidence in a court of law?

Unless you can say that it is enforceable based on SCO’s claims only,
then like IBM, I wait for my opportunity to defend myself against the
Licensors claims in a REAL COURT OF LAW!

And IF MS had on ounce of integrity, then they would exercise their
responsibility under due diligence try to enforce their ONE COMPUTER
EULA CLAIM in a REAL court of law.

But we all know MS’s integrity record! Proven Predatory Monopoly!
Proven Patent Infringer! Proven Copyright Infringer!

--
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]

The Linux advocates say Mandrake is easier to install than Windows. If you
find Linux too difficult, take it up with them - it's not Microsoft's
problem. Neither can you hold Microsoft accountable becuase Apple charges
too much while at the same time refuses to open its platform.

The real monopolists - Linux with its monopolizing GPL [GNU Public Licence
which takes defacto ownership of any software anyone produces under it] and
Apple with its completely closed OS/hardware platform - don't do as well as
Microsoft which is built on open systems and offers open APIs for
development. But that's not Microsoft's fault nor responsiblity.

 

[kurttrail]

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.

I agree. It is a matter of integrity for me not to blindly follow
contractual terms that I find to be unconscionable!

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.

LOL! Show me where in the EULA it says that!

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

LOL! Only if you twist a limitation of the rights of a copyright owner
into a limitation on the owner of a copy of a computer program!

And that twisting show how much you really care about integrity! Not
one iota!

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.

LOL! If there was a viable choice otherwise, you might have a point,
but Linux don't run on my computer hardware, and it is still more of a
server OS than a multimedia consumer OS, and OSX won't run on my
computer system by its very design!

By your argument, I have the choice of using MS's OS, or letting my
computer system collect dust! I doubt any court would accept your
specious argument that I have any real choice but to use a MS OS!

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

Certainly it is. Does a dog cease to become a dog when it crosses the
threshold?

Yes, it becomes a Bruce!

Is a dog a copyrighted work, Bruce?

The "home" is no magic sanctuary where all outside laws
are abnegated.

One does have the expectation of privacy. A cable company can't come
into your home without your permission, except with a legal warrent
issued by a judge, just because they have a local monopoly on the cable
service.

Hell, the music industry doesn't even have the right to get your name
from an ISP until a court decides otherwise!

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.)

Murder is a criminal offence. AT MOST, installing software is a civil
matter.

The really wrong thing under copyright law isn't the copying of
copyrighted material, it is in the distribution of those copies to other
people or organizations, Bruce.

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?

A copy of software is paid for all at once. Poor analogy. As a matter
of FACT, a copy of software is SOLD before any terms are agreed upon!

If
you sign a contract for rent, but then don't pay it, can you continue
to live in that house indefinitely?

Again, you are renting software. The copy of software was sold to you
by the previous owner of that copy of software, and payment was made in
full!

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.

You are f*$king delusional. That is "fair use" even here in the States!
And haven't you heard of the nasty evil book-sharing institution, THE
FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY?!

Let's throw all librarians in JAIL! Hey, wasn't Laura Bush a librarian!
Let's start with her!

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.

MS has no rights in my home, and there is not any legal precedent to
argue otherwise.

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."

I don't distribute software to others. I use software for my own
private non-commercial use. "Fair Use."

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?

Yet another specious anology. MS has been more than fairly compensated
for the creative labor of its employees. And no one in their right mind
could agrue otherwise. So what's that tell you about your mind, Bruce?
You are not right in the head, that's what!

--
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 \(MS-MVP\)]

Kurt

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!

Your statements are true, but we each make the choice of whether to take
each step or demonstrate some common sense..

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.

Free public libraries do NOT have immediate access to every newly published
book..

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

I agree on the second point here.. file copying puts 'whatever' out to a
broader base than the industries in question would have if they just relied
on sales of records (45, 33, 78).. however, I see no problem in exchanging
material that is no longer on sale or ever likely to be on sale.. I
contacted a record producer to find out if I could get an old movie
soundtrack from years ago.. they laughed at me.. and they wonder why people
use P2P?..

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

Three to five year period?.. nothing good has come out of the industry since
the early eighties.. lol..

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.

And they think that people who downloaded it would have paid more than $10
to see it at a theatre or buy the video tape for $25?.. they must have
started by smoking cigarettes for sure.. lol..

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

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!

They go after file sharers because it is easier than going after virus
authors or closet users of Linux..

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!

Then you were a very naughty boy..

The Internet has yet to kill off the local newspaper!

Newspapers box clever though.. they put the type of content onto the net
that you may only glance over, and you still have to go out and buy the
overpriced rag to see how the local team fared in their last game..

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

True enough.. I would have thought that most piracy in Western Europe and
North America would be music, movies and games anyway.. with many systems
being purchased complete with OS, one would expect to see a reduction in OS
piracy, and this is reflected in statistics..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User

 

[kurttrail]

Kurt


Your statements are true, but we each make the choice of whether to
take each step or demonstrate some common sense..

Exactly. We don't need to shoot people just because we own a gun. That
why in the US, Gun ownership is legal.

Just because I have a CD burner doesn't mean I'll go making copies of my
copies of software for those outside of my household. Hell, that is
part of the reasoning behind the betamax case. Just because the vcr can
be used as an infrigement tool doesn't mean we have to ban vcr's.

I'm sorry, but I've been grown up "fairly using" the copyright software
I buy. I was making mixed tapes on 8track tapes! It's gonna take a
major rewrite of US copyright law, before I'll accept that "fair use" is
my right in my home. And then I'm moving to Canada!

Free public libraries do NOT have immediate access to every newly
published book..

No, just the one's the librarian chooses to purchase within her budget
limitations. And is a city like New York more of the latest books are
bought, than East Bumfuk, Iowa.

I agree on the second point here.. file copying puts 'whatever' out
to a broader base than the industries in question would have if they
just relied on sales of records (45, 33, 78).. however, I see no
problem in exchanging material that is no longer on sale or ever
likely to be on sale.. I contacted a record producer to find out if I
could get an old movie soundtrack from years ago.. they laughed at
me.. and they wonder why people use P2P?..


Three to five year period?.. nothing good has come out of the
industry since the early eighties.. lol..

I agree, but we're showing our age by saying that!

And they think that people who downloaded it would have paid more
than $10 to see it at a theatre or buy the video tape for $25?.. they
must have started by smoking cigarettes for sure.. lol..


They go after file sharers because it is easier than going after virus
authors or closet users of Linux..

And again, I see the distribution of copyrighted material to others as
wrong under Copyright Law. The way I see it, making copies isn't bad,
unless you are distributing them to someone else, outside of your home.

Then you were a very naughty boy..

Yeah, It is a "causal infringement." My born-again christian mother
shares her books with friends, even the christian titles!

It is something that copyright owners have had to live with ever since
the dawn of copyrighted material. And the corporate copyright elite of
this generation are raking in more money than they ever have!

Newspapers box clever though.. they put the type of content onto the
net that you may only glance over, and you still have to go out and
buy the overpriced rag to see how the local team fared in their last
game..

I have no trouble keeping up with my favorite American Football teams.
And when it comes to soccer, I only like watching the World Cups, and I
prefer watching the women over the men.

And I love google news for giving me access to the same story but from
news outlets around the world! As far as I'm concerned, it has killed
all but killed off a lot of my 24hr cable news viewing, except for major
live news events.

True enough.. I would have thought that most piracy in Western Europe
and North America would be music, movies and games anyway.. with many
systems being purchased complete with OS, one would expect to see a
reduction in OS piracy, and this is reflected in statistics..

Yep. The copyright elite better be very careful about their sky is
falling pronouncements about piracy. It is getting to a point, where no
one is believing them, because the facts and their fat wallets don't
jibe with their crying Wolf all the time.

--
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"

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

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

I'm not so sure at all about the value of a EULA. I never had one that was
signed both by me and the seller before the purchase. EULAs are something
like unilateral suggestions for contracts. I can have my own suggestion for
a contract, and claim that by selling me software, the seller accepted my
version... The same way you can say that I don't have to buy the software
if I don't like their suggestions for the licensing terms I can say that
they don't have to sell me software if they don't like my suggestions for
the licensing terms.

Just because seller's EULAs are so much more common than buyer's LAs
doesn't make this any different. By the time the EULA comes into play, the
purchase has already been completed, in most cases. Which makes the
seller's EULA not much more valid than my buyer's LA.

That may not be exactly where the current interpretation of the law stands,
but that again is a different issue. Law and its interpretation is always
changing, and sometimes it is quite a few steps behind.

Gerhard

 

[Donald McDaniel]

<snip>
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.

Not so, Mr. Chambers. Even Microsoft does not require in its EULAs
for a customer to agree that his "fair use" rights are not being
abridged. There is no clause in the EULA which states that one who
installs the software MUST abrogate his right to disagree that his
"fair use" rights are abridged. Such a contract would be
UNENFORCEABLE, since it would be the same as abrogating his rights to
integrity of thought and mind. Of course, I'm sure some Microsoft
synchopants would LIKE to see such a clause in the United States
Constitution, and in the Microsoft EULAs. I won't say who they are.
Everyone who posts in these newsgroups know who they are already.

Very specious reasoning, Mr. Chambers. It is perfectly possible to
agree to a contract, for convenience sake, and STILL hold on to a
belief that "fair use" is being abridged. No contract on the face of
the Earth can abridge a man's innate right to the integrity of his own
mind and thoughts (except maybe in N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and other
anti-democratic nations). In fact, most Microsoft EULAs have a clause
in them (if I'm not mistaken) which state very plainly that the terms
of the EULA do not apply where such terms would be applied in the case
of a law or statue which disagrees with the terms. We believe that
the EULA disagrees with the law (established plainly by the U.S.
Supreme Court) concerning "fair use". Many of us came to this
conclusion AFTER agreeing to the terms of the EULA (an agreement we
reached AFTER purchasing the product, since the EULA is NOT published
on the outside of the product packaging). For years, I agreed to
Microsoft's EULA sight unseen. Believe me, I now ALWAYS read my EULA
after purchasing and beginning the installation of a Microsoft
Product. And I agree (sometimes with reservations) to the EULA by
installing the product, because the other options are unacceptable to
me because of price or features.

On the matter of an individual no longer agreeing with the EULA and
abrogating it: Microsoft itself has abrogated its EULA as far as XP
OEM software is concerned by beginning to no longer allow Internet
Activation of XP OEM AFTER both parties have agreed to the EULA, which
PLAINLY states that an individual may, under the EULA, activate his
software EITHER via the Internet OR via the phone. Since Microsoft
has abrogated its own EULA, I believe the individual customer is NO
LONGER bound by the XP OEM EULA.

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

Law in the United States at the current time is contradictory in many
cases, from state to state. Such an argument is useless, since a good
lawyer can establish the rights of his clients(either public or
private) under almost ANY circumstances, if he goes to the right state
or jurisdiction.
Why do you enclose the term human "rights" in quotes, as if to show
that such "rights" don't really exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
something here.

But as far as "human rights" are concerned, both the United States
Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence of
the first Constitutional Congress, have ENTHRONED forever the basic
human "rights" of an individual. Trying to get a man to abrogate
these "rights" is evil and criminal, as far as I am concerned. How
can basic human rights interfere in ANYTHING? The Declaration of
Independence tells us that these rights are GOD-GIVEN. To try to take
these rights away from a Man is to try to defeat God Himself. This
will NEVER be possible.

And I'd certainly not argue with that.

Then WHY are you arguing with "that", if you'd "certainly not argue
with that."

I simply don't see how it could
possibly be relevant.

How can you not see that ensuring that basic human rights are
inviolable is truly relevant to all contracts? It is in the very
SPIRIT of Law. If you can't see that, you are like the Pharisees of
Jesus' day, who kept the LETTER of the Law, but failed to abide by the
SPIRIT of the Law. And the lawyers of Microsoft are like the Scribes
of the Pharisees, who interpreted the Law in such a way that the
spirit of theLaw was abrogated by the Pharisees, who used the Scribes
to re-write the Law according to THEIR evil, selfish understanding of
it. This allowed them to persecute the righteous, and oppress the
poor, and still pat themselves on the back, and tell each other "You
keep the Law, but they don't".

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 can't see that, you're as blind as a bat. If one keeps the
terms of an evil contract, one becomes evil himself.

The Nazis in Germany made many laws, which enabled them to steal the
possessions of anyone they wanted "legally". And the population sat
back and "kept the Law" (or closed their eyes to the evil which was
going on). Abiding by the "Law" in that case led the nation to utter
ruin. Evil starts small, Mr. Chambers. Mr. Gates has grown grossly
wealthy by stealing the money of his customers with Microsoft's
spurious interpretation of the "fair use" laws. No wonder he is
giving some of it away to good causes. He probably feels guilty.
This is good. But maybe in addition, he should give some of it back
to his customers by lowering the prices of his products, and by
replacing his evil EULAs with ones which include basic human rights,
and a true interpretation of "fair use" law.

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.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================

 

[Steve N.]

In


This is a peer support newsgroup and is not officially monitored by MSFT.
There is the occasional MSFT response, but they are posting on their free
time in a non-official status.
But did you really care, since you didn't bother to reply to any of the
viable replies you received.
You can install retail XP on the same hardware or new hardware as many times
as you want, all you need to do if prompted by a message it has been
installed too many times is to follow the on screen prompts and activated by
phone. Explain you have reinstalled XP in accordance with the EULA. Retail
XP has no restrictions on the number of times it can be installed as long as
it is installed to one computer at a time. The highly discounted OEM
versions have restrictions limiting transfer and the ability to only clean
install as would be expected of software half the cost of the unrestricted
retail versions.

Michael, a minor correction - a Full OEM CD (not a factory restore CD)
can indeed be used to do a repair install, I believe what it cannot do
is an upgrade install over a previous version of Windows.

Steve

 

[Leythos]

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.

Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.

I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard without
having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.

 

[kurttrail]

Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.

I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.

--

Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.

While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores, most
if not all distros means that people have to give up some functionality,
or need a lot of retraining.

I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so easy,
when it has been decades since they have been an average computer user.

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

Michael, a minor correction - a Full OEM CD (not a factory restore CD)
can indeed be used to do a repair install, I believe what it cannot do
is an upgrade install over a previous version of Windows.

Steve

So did we clear anything up with this thread, Steve?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--
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"

 

[Leythos]

Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.

While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores, most
if not all distros means that people have to give up some functionality,
or need a lot of retraining.

I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so easy,
when it has been decades since they have been an average computer user.

And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with email/web
without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word document that
he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box and email it back
to himself (for school work).

While I agree that there are some things that still present a challenge
for some small groups of users - multimedia is not as fully supported as
it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the general public that
buys computers from chain stores.

 

[Steve N.]

So did we clear anything up with this thread, Steve?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Not that I can see.

Steve

 

[Donald McDaniel]

And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with email/web
without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word document that
he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box and email it back
to himself (for school work).

While I agree that there are some things that still present a challenge
for some small groups of users - multimedia is not as fully supported as
it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the general public that
buys computers from chain stores.

I disagree, since MOST users of Windows use it for its ease in doing
multimedia operations and in using the hardware they want

Those who use Linux all the time, as a general rule, either have an
axe to grind with Microsoft or just love to make little adjustments in
obscure text files over and over.

The ones who use Linux all the time usually love to take apart clocks
to see how they work. The general public does not: they just want the
clocks they bought working every day.

The fact is, Linux will not be ready for the general public until it
makes it very easy to work with multimedia files and hardware.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================

 

[Alias]

Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.

I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so dumb. I
can install XP no problems.

I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard without
having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.

I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous claim. Most
computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with
email/web without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word
document that he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box
and email it back to himself (for school work).

Not that I believe a word you say about a son whose age you can't get
right, but dear old dad probably got him a box that was linux compatible
to begin with! Not everyones hardware will set up as easily. And they
would still have a whole bunch of software that they purchased over the
years that would be totally useless.

Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I know
way too many people that start menu is larger than their screens, all
because they don't know how to manage their start menu. Your fictitious
son obviouly has more technical expertise than that.

While I agree that there are some things that still present a
challenge for some small groups of users

You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged using
Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.

- multimedia is not as fully
supported as it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the
general public that buys computers from chain stores.

LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me about
buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.

--
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"

 

[Leythos]

I disagree, since MOST users of Windows use it for its ease in doing
multimedia operations and in using the hardware they want

Multimedia is not easy on Windows, unless all of your multimedia
experience is based on MediaPlayer. There are countless products out
that support playing VCD's, DVD's, making them and such - most of which
is not supported by Windows OS directly.

With Linux, it comes with the basic Windows like multimedia tools, and
like Windows you have to download the rest - most of which are free,
which is unlike Windows apps.

The only real issue is hardware support on Linux vs Windows, with
Windows having a larger driver vendor base right now.

Those who use Linux all the time, as a general rule, either have an
axe to grind with Microsoft or just love to make little adjustments in
obscure text files over and over.

The ones who use Linux all the time usually love to take apart clocks
to see how they work. The general public does not: they just want the
clocks they bought working every day.

That was true in the old day, as long as a year ago, but since you
apparently have not tried any of the newer versions, I'm sure not FC3
based on your presumptions, you are missing a lot and carry no
credibility in the subject.

The fact is, Linux will not be ready for the general public until it
makes it very easy to work with multimedia files and hardware.

I got news for you, multimedia, more than just playing a movie or
burning a cd, is not something embraced by the world on a PC. Sure,
there are people like myself that can do everything on a PC with video,
audio, etc... but I can do it all on a Linux box too, and other than
having to read a little or find the proper product, it's not any
different than on my Windows boxes.

If you want to keep thinking that Linux is not ready, go on and think
it, you may wake up one day and see that the world left you behind. As
an IT manager I can't afford to miss what's happening the world.

 

[Leythos]

I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so dumb. I
can install XP no problems.

I don't believe you, I've seem you copy Kurt's positions, so you must be
able to press/click a mouse, that's all it takes.

I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous claim. Most
computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.

If you tried you would have succeeded, it's quite simple on everything
from simple P3's to Dual Xeon machines in my own testing.

 

[Leythos]

Not that I believe a word you say about a son whose age you can't get
right, but dear old dad probably got him a box that was linux compatible
to begin with! Not everyones hardware will set up as easily. And they
would still have a whole bunch of software that they purchased over the
years that would be totally useless.

Actually, it was a small Optiplex that had been running Windows XP SP1,
single HD, CDRW, ATI Video, and 256MB RAM. The drive was new,
unformatted, and I installed the drive hardware and gave him the
machine.....

Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I know
way too many people that start menu is larger than their screens, all
because they don't know how to manage their start menu. Your fictitious
son obviouly has more technical expertise than that.

And it would have worked as easily for those people you mention, it was
so simple that anyone able to post in this group could do it.

You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged using
Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.

If you put two non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience in
front of identical hardware systems, running each OS, they would not
have any more problem with the Linux box than with the Windows box.

LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me about
buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.

Careful, if we agree on to many things (like the chain store item),
people might get the idea that we're really room-mates