Leythos said:
Sorry about the last reply if the cancel didn't work, I hit send by
accident before I was finished.
No, and this is the entire base of the argument - I believe that
people have a right to use the product according to the vendors
rules/licenses or not use it at all. There is nothing life sustaining
about Windows, so there is no reason to violate the vendors licensing
rules.
Sure there is,when it interferes with your right to privacy and "fair
use" in your own home!
You mean the passport-protected OEM documents that have nothing to do
with END USERS? LOL!
No, I mean the documents YOU'VE PROVIDED, which is what I typed.
It's called the way the law works.
And the only thing I've seen in the law is the ability to make a
backup copy for archive purposes.
[snip]
Fair Use, and that the Supreme Court said, " ANY INDIVIDUAL may
reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use'; the copyright owner DOES
NOT POSSESS the exclusive right to such a use."
And software is just a copyright work.
Yea, and you could be wrong.
I could, but I didn't come up with a fairy tale with no names.
Funny how that works for both of us. You
say something that you don't have to prove and unless someone proves
you wrong you assume you're right. Funny how that works for you.
Except the way the law works. I am presumed innocent of everything.
Like SCO v. IBM, IBM hasn't done ANYTHING wrong just because SCO CLAIMS
a violation, it is up to SCO to prove by the preponderance of the
evidence that IBM violated the EULA.
Same with MS's EULA. MS is the final arbiter of the enforcibility of
its one computer term on private non-commercial individuals, MS must
prove it in a court of law! And until that happens, all you have is a
legally unsubstantiated claim that MS's One Computer nonsense in legally
enforcable on me or ANYONE!
And after over 13 YEARS of MS totally avoiding doing just that, I don't
ever expect to be proven wrong.
Well, I said I've seen it happen, seen small vendors go out of
business because their product was copied without permission and
distributed without a cent being paid to them, and they went out of
business. Prove me wrong - you can't.
How can I since you don't give details, like the software name and the
company?!
Prove it hasn't cost MS any sales? You ask one question and then
divert to another - Sure, it might not directly take money out of the
Bank directly related to the pirated copy, but it's sure not putting
money in the bank either - and that's the point - for each copy of
pirated software it reduces profits - and you can't say that's a false
statement.
LOL!
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar05/flashversion/10k_fr_bal.html
Show me on MS's balance sheet the losses due to piracy!
Nope, you clearly support piracy, prove that you don't.
LOL! Don't care what you "clearly" believe! And see no need to prove
anything to you.
Even the law
says you can only make a copy for archive/backup purposes,
BS! That is only a part of Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. But you
don't understand what "OR" means, so you are too stupid to understand
the law as written, and I see no need to repeat an argument with someone
that doesn't understand the meaning of the word "or."
For anyone interested in reading what Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117
means, see:
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq
but you
insist that you can make as many copies as you want and run them all
at the same time.
Yep, and until proven otherwise, by the preponderance of the evidence in
a court of law, I have every right to believe it, not only as a matter
of "fair use," which I would need to be sued by a copyright owner that
disputes my interpretation of "fair use," but as a matter of contract
law also, as it is up to the aggrieved party, in this case MS, to sue me
to prove any contractual breech it alleges.
That is how the law works! And after 13 years of MS failing to do just
that, I feel I have every right to my interpretation of MY RIGHTS in MY
HOME!
MS can rant and rave and spew FUD out of the ass like a cornacopia, but
until they get the balls to prove me wrong, I have EVERY RIGHT to tell
the to go screw!
I didn't make that mistake - you can't read/understand.
LOL! You are being as vague as possible, because you have nothing but
bupkis!
Nope, we're talking about people busted for installation of licensed
software without a license. I thought that was clear. The idiot gets
caught during an audit, the individual gets threatened by the audit
team with legal action, the company fires the individual due to AUP
violations, etc.... All at the same time. Company not fined at all.
LOL! It was for commercial use, numbskull! Not private non-commercial
use in the home. Home users don't get software audits!
I got you pegged! What a moron you are! You should have ran away when
you had a chance! But now we can all see you are full of it!
Not going to court doesn't change anything, it's still a violation,
still not permitted in acceptable use laws.
Tell that to SCO! I'm sure it would rather not have to prove IBM
violated the UNIX license terms in a court.
Not going to court does matter. By not going to court MS is failing to
meet their due diligence responsibilities, when it comes to the
copyright, and the so-called license!
No answer. I love it!
I have nothing to do with the BSA or any "checking" type company,
don't care to, don't want too. But, as a business person I see you as
a Piracy advocate, clear, simple, works for me.
As a sycophant of the corporate copyright elite you are crying WOLF,
when there is no wolf to be found.
Just like all the unsubstantiated claims of piracy. All FUD, no balls,
no proof!
And I don't feel sorry for you - since I don't really care about you.
LOL! Kisses!
I don't take people like you seriously as I've seen trolls for a long
time. Heck, the only reason I even respond to you any more is to see
where you will divert the subject next to see if I guessed right.
LOL! I'm the one that stands behind what I say. I have a web site to
broadcast my beliefs to the world. Your purposely request that your
posts don't get archived.
Actions speak louder than words.
And you have no proof that a company has never been put out of
business due to Piracy.
I'm still waiting to be shown one!
Like proving a specific "GOD." I'm not going to believe that any
specific god exists until it is proven.
I'm not gonna believe that any company has been put out of business by
piracy until proven.
I need not disprove a negative, like there is no God, or there is no
company that has been put out of business by piracy, as it is well-known
that proving a negative is near impossible.
And I'm not gonna start believing any affirmative statement until
proven. To believe in an unproven affirmative statement would be faith,
not a reasonable belief.
You try and claim that piracy doesn't hurt
profits, but then you say it didn't take money out of the bank, but
it does hurt profits.
HUH? Piracy doesn't show up on the balance sheet. Insurance companies
don't pay out piracy claims.
You say that MS has enough money,
I did? ROFL!
MS has made way more than there fair share. On Windows, MS has a net
profit margin of 85%. Only organized crime and oil companies rape
consumers that badly!
http://www.computerweekly.com/Article117557.htm
but it's not
your call to make.
The copyright monopoly is only meant to provide the copyright owner "a
fair return for an 'author's' creative labor."
"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
You say that people can do anything they want in
their homes with anything they have, but the law says you can only
make a backup/archive copy, not run additional copies.
No, it only says that if you are an ignoramus that doesn't no what "OR"
means!
And, finally, yes, I believe Piracy is a big problem.
Yep, and christian conservatives think that gay marriage is a big
problem for hetro-marriage.
Both problems are nothing but bullsh*t.
Look at how PCBUTTS has impacted "noahdfear" - Butts piracy of the
file has cause him to spend valuable time in defense of the product,
will cost him court fees/atty fees to stop him, will take donations
away from him as people my never see the noahdfear website and use
butts site instead....
Don't know anything about it, but that is part of the costs of going
into business, part of the due diligence responsibility of protecting
your copyrighted material.
And there are ways that don't cost anything to stop the butthead.
Butts claims he's doing it as an individual,
sharing with other individuals.....
LOL! And as much as it pains me to say it, he has a right to his
interpretation, but in his circumstance if taken to court he doesn't
have a good case and would quickly ruled against.
--
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"
"