removing xp from one machine so it can be reinstalled on another

[Daniel]

Irespective of all the vitriol, excuses and justification, using something
without permission or without paying for it is theft.

Daniel

 

[Winux P]

I payed for it and I don't need excuses, now go take matters into your own
hands, preferably somewhere private. It will take the pressure off your head
too.

-Winux P.

 

[kurttrail]

Irespective of all the vitriol, excuses and justification, using
something without permission or without paying for it is theft.

No, it's not. At MOST, it is copyright infringement and/or a contract
dispute which MS has to bring to a court and be willing to prove it by
the preponderance of the evidence. Both are civil offences, which not
one individual has ever been sued for, let alone been found guilty of,
for installing a copy of software, that was legally sold to the
individual, on more than one computer.

Why? Because a copyright owner doesn't have the right to limit such a
"fair use."

Theft is a criminal offense, not a civil offense. There is no
comparison, and only those not bright enough to understand the
difference between a civil and a criminal offense, attempt to compare
the two as equals. So please keep proving that you are not bright
enough to discuss this topic rationally. Thanks.

--
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"

 

[Winux P]

I think you have (can't remember completely) to reproduce a copy from the
source and make claim to it, to infringe copyright law. That is, to ensure a
conviction against you without doubt. Distributing copies without the
consent of the proprietor may also infringe on copyright amongst other
things, like theft Mr. Danismell. A contractual infringement without doubt
involves a contractual agreement (i.e affirmation) between all parties in
the contract. Then one breaks or alters the agreement, and does not seek
ratification of the other parties. Or does not inform the other parties,
that is to say, you alter the conditions of the contract (make no mistake,
EULA is no contract unless Danismell you agreed to it) you inform the other
parties and they don't act on your changes. A Judge would look more
dishonourably on the other parties than you if they started to complain
about it.

I wouldn't consider a contractual infringement installing WindowsXP on more
than one of MY home PCs, since I did not agree nor was aware of the contract
at the point of sale, or before the sale for that matter. I wouldn't
consider choosing the "I've read and agreed to the terms of ......" option
on installation, to enable the next button as a contractual agreement.

I think a reason why MS is all tight arsed on product activation and genuine
checks is because their clauses in EULA cannot be policed nor enforced
properly by law. It's full of holes (more like black holes). You must agree
to the terms and condition before installing the software??? I just paid for
it. Don't tell me its' not mine after the sale... So Danismell, who did not
seek permission, took money and then said it NOT 'properly' your software
like a thief would do, then come out with all sorts of excuses and
justification on a bit of paper titled EULA? Chillout I'm being rhetorical
Danismell, I wouldn't want to pressure your head anymore than it is.

-Winux P.