Rules about copies of XP?

[kurttrail]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:55:59 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
[another snip]

Yet you can't show that what I state is a fact, is only an opinion!

I'm not sure you meant to say that, as it's a fact that you are
stating your opinion, and that's a fact - that you are stating your
Opinion.

Read it SLOWLY. I doubt you will understand it anyway.

You can't show me where your "opinion" is fact concerning
your assertion that you can do anything you want with the Software
you've licensed from any vendor. In all your posts, fair use, quotes
from different site, I've not seen anything directly in them that
indicates the user has a right to do anything they want with licensed
software.

That's because you are closed minded.

I've seen your Opinion of what you read in those texts, but
your opinion doesn't make it right. Neither side can show anything
other than there is an EULA, there are MS statements of what they
want us to believe, and there is no case law that indicates you can
legally install their licensed software without regard to the
licensing.

I showd you where the Stanford site says basically the same thing as I
said. How quickly you forget!

The only thing in this whole thread that called a Fact is that you have
a right to your interpretation "fair use" unless the copyright owner
disputes it and gets a court to agree with them.

That is a FACT. Not an opinion. That is the way copyright law works in
REALITY, not in your "EULA über alles" delusions.

You have miserably failed to demonstrate that it isn't a fact. Your
mindless refutation that it is an opinion is just lame.

--
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]

[another big snip]
Another group of EULA-groupies are those like Leythos, tied into MS
through their businesses. Leythos is a MS Partner.

I've never hidden the fact that I'm a MS Partner and ISV, and I've
never tried to hide it. I'm no ashamed of my position or that I pay
for all licenses I use for the office or my home.

LOL! And you aren't ashamed to mindlessly state that a fact isn't a
fact, yet you cannot demonstrate that it is an opinion, except to repeat
over and over again that it is an opinion.

If it was just on opinion, then it should be very easy to show that it
is, with something more that mindless refutation! You have no shame,
and just keep repeating your baseless claim.


--
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]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:39:47 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
[big snip - happy now?]

I would be ashamed to show my face, if I conducted myself in your
manner, and all I had to say in reply to someone was some gutless
variation of "no, it isn't."

I agree, you should hide your face.

ROFL! If I were you, I would! Believe me, I really would!

--
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]

Kurt, their is no absolute truth in law. It's all based on what some
judge thought one morning. And if his/her coffee wasn't hot enough
....

All law is opinion.

In Australia we have Barristers and solicitors. Barristers argue in
court and write legal opinions. Solicitors employ barristers to do
one of the above. People only employ solicitors. Solictors can argue
in local courts.

A barristor cannot work as a solicitor and vice versa. They have the
same law degree. A solicitor is very unlikely to ever be a judge.

So any discourse on law is a discourse of opinions.

That is not totally true. There are set procedures for things like
suing over a contract dispute or over a disagreement over the meaning of
the law. What I'm stating as fact, it those procedures.

For my interpretation of fair use (my opinion) to be found legally
invalid, the copyright owner must sue me and get a court to the court to
agree with them. This is a matter of legal procedures, and it is a
fact, in the US.

--
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"

 

[Ron Bogart]

In

That is not totally true. There are set procedures for things like
suing over a contract dispute or over a disagreement over the meaning
of the law. What I'm stating as fact, it those procedures.

For my interpretation of fair use (my opinion) to be found legally
invalid, the copyright owner must sue me and get a court to the court
to agree with them. This is a matter of legal procedures, and it is a
fact, in the US.

For your opinion to be 'fact' - this must go to court and MS lose. Other
than that - it is still *your* opinion and not worth much at that.

--
Ron Bogart {} ô¿ô¬
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
Lovin life on Mercer Island 8^)
"Life is what happens while we are making other plans."

 

[David Candy]

If you came here (australia) and wanted legal advice on this issue. You would employ a solicitor who will commission a legal opinion from a barrister (which has no legal weight but if he's wrong too often noone will employ him). The solicitor will then give you the opinion.

To take issue with your hope that MS will sue you. You can sue them and have the eula declared invalid. Remember my only legal training is that which accountants get. And I only did one year. (Though I've also did one semester of Social Work and the Law - a compulsory subject but that's about poor people and the law. EULA and contract law don't get mentioned.)

 

[Tom]

Leythos is a MS Partner.

Oh, I didn't know that; so I guess that is why he is hog tied into making
conformists posts here!.

 

[kurttrail]

In

For your opinion to be 'fact' - this must go to court and MS lose.
Other than that - it is still *your* opinion and not worth much at
that.

Since what I was stating as fact is that very procedure, we are
basically in agreement. It is not up to me to sue MS. It is up to MS
to sue me, in order to protect its perceived rights. That is the fact
I've been stating all along. Unfortunately, some people around here are
too narrow-minded to see that. Until MS sues me and wins, my opinion on
"fair use" is not legally invalid. I have every right to follow my
"fair use" opinion, unless and until MS sues me and wins!

--
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]

If you came here (australia) and wanted legal advice on this issue.
You would employ a solicitor who will commission a legal opinion from
a barrister (which has no legal weight but if he's wrong too often
noone will employ him). The solicitor will then give you the opinion.

That ain't the way it works here. And Austrailia doesn't have a concept
like "fair use" under its Copyright law, that I'm aware of.

To take issue with your hope that MS will sue you. You can sue them
and have the eula declared invalid. Remember my only legal training
is that which accountants get. And I only did one year. (Though I've
also did one semester of Social Work and the Law - a compulsory
subject but that's about poor people and the law. EULA and contract
law don't get mentioned.)

I could, but I don't have to under US law. Under contract law and civil
copyright law the onus of suing is on the licensor/copyright owner, in
order to protect their license/copyright. And if it can be proved that
the licensor/copyright owner has ignored legally enforcing their
perceived rights for a substantial length of time, that can be held
against them at trial.

SCO waited just five years in going after IBM, and they had to explain
to the court why they waited so long. With MS, it has been more than a
dozen years of inaction on their part, since they introduced their One
Computer term to the Windows EULA.

Yeah, I could sue them, but it would be a much easier case to win,
having MS sue an individual after all this time has passed, and then
getting the EFF and the ACLU to defend them.

And I still have a couple of arguments up my sleeve that I have never
mentioned in these groups, to pull out, in the unlikely event that MS
does sue an individual over its EULA terms. Believe me when I say that
MS is too chicken to try to legally enforce its One Computer term over
that of an individual's right to "fair use" for private non-commercial
use, because their lawyers know what shaky ground they would really be
on arguing it in front of a real judge.

--
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"

 

[Ron Bogart]

In

Since what I was stating as fact is that very procedure, we are
basically in agreement.

Now you intend to insult me??? ;-)

It is not up to me to sue MS. It is up to MS
to sue me, in order to protect its perceived rights. That is the fact
I've been stating all along. Unfortunately, some people around here
are too narrow-minded to see that. Until MS sues me and wins, my
opinion on "fair use" is not legally invalid. I have every right to
follow my "fair use" opinion, unless and until MS sues me and wins!

--
Ron Bogart {} ô¿ô¬
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
Lovin life on Mercer Island 8^)
"Life is what happens while we are making other plans."

 

[kurttrail]

In
Now you intend to insult me??? ;-)

LOL! No I wasn't. You jumped into the middle of something between me
and Leythos, and misunderstood what the argument was about.

My "interpretation" of fair use is obviously an opinion, and is pretty
apparent by my calling it my "interpretation." The procedures to prove
my "interpretation" is invalid are factual. Leythos is blind to
difference, and just keeps saying that those procedures are my opinion.

I could say that the grass in my yard is green, and he would say that is
just my opinion.

--
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"

 

[David Candy]

Exactly.

 

[David Candy]

I wouldn't sue them either as they persist in their mistaken belief I don't own my copy of XP. Though fair use is being discussed here after we adopted all the nasty parts of US copyright law (for the FTA) people are now saying we should adopt the rights as well. But they gave me my copies for free so I won't be sueing them.

If I don't own something then I don't use it. I have never bought stolen property. Because it wouldn't be mine and I don't want things that aren't mine (this is not an honesty thing, this is a sense of self thing - possessions do become part of a person identity, although an arm is more important than a rake but both bevome the person's identity - I did more units than just social work and the law - like psychology, community development, educational theory, counselling (Aus spelling), group work, Agency management, how to infiltrate and take over organisations, etc).

 

[Leythos]

Oh, I didn't know that; so I guess that is why he is hog tied into making
conformists posts here!.

How could you miss it in all this time. I've stated it several times in
the threads you were involved it. Oh, and being a MS partner does not make
one conform, if that were the case I would no be posting from a Linux
workstation using PAN as my Usenet client.

 

[kurttrail]

Then, by your own reasoning, your opinion also cannot be considered
valid until *you* sue Microsoft and win.

No. I have a right to my interpretation, and only if a copyright owner
gets a court says otherwise can it be considered invalid. I only have
to prove it, if the copyright owner challenges it in a court of law.

Next month will mark the 13th aniversary of MS not legally challenging
the "fair use" of Windows, by exercising their responsibilites under due
diligence, and trying to enforce their EULA One Computer term over that
of the private non-commercial individual's right to "fair use" of
his/her copy of Windows, in a real court of law.

--
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]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:05:23 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
[snip - for Kurt]

And what makes you think Tom or anyone reads every post in a thread they
participate in? Or that you are all that rememberable?

What makes you think that I would make a comment asking a question like
that if he was not an active participant in the discussion where I posted
that information?

[snip - for Kurt]

 

[kurttrail]

How could you miss it in all this time.

Easily. This is only about the third or fouth time I seen it, and 2 or
3 of those times were in response to me showing your obvious conflict of
interest.

The first time I saw it was in a thread I happen to read that I hadn't
read yet.

And what makes you think Tom or anyone reads every post in a thread they
participate in? Or that you are all that rememberable?

I've stated it several times
in the threads you were involved it.
So?

Oh, and being a MS partner does
not make one conform, if that were the case I would no be posting
from a Linux workstation using PAN as my Usenet client.

It does show your conflict of interest, since you're a MS partner.

--
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]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:05:23 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
[snip - button]

It does show your conflict of interest, since you're a MS partner.

That's the second lamest thing I've seen from you Kurt. We're a partner in
order to qualify for the services and licenses that allow us to operate
the business at a lower cost. There is no conflict in that, actually using
MS's systems to lower or operational costs - a conflict?

Lets take a look: I don't install ISA, we use WatchGuard, I would never
trust ISA. We do spec XP workstations and 2003 servers and SQL database
servers and Exchange 2003 servers, but we also setup Linux workstations
for shops, install non-MS email servers, install non-MS web servers,
install MySQL databases, and design web applications that are supported by
both ASP/ASP.Net and Mono in addition to Java and ColdFusionMX. Seems to
me we're about 50/50 on the solutions and save a ton of money on licensing
by being a partner and ISV - doesn't look like a conflict to me, it looks
like taking advantage of the programs that MS puts in place to help
businesses that build solutions WITH MS products.

 

[kurttrail]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:05:23 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
[snip - for Kurt]

And what makes you think Tom or anyone reads every post in a thread
they participate in? Or that you are all that rememberable?

What makes you think that I would make a comment asking a question
like that if he was not an active participant in the discussion where
I posted that information?

[snip - for Kurt]

Was it in response to him, or did he respond to it? You just ASSume.
How fitting!

--
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]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:05:23 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
[snip - button]

It does show your conflict of interest, since you're a MS partner.

That's the second lamest thing I've seen from you Kurt. We're a
partner in order to qualify for the services and licenses that allow
us to operate the business at a lower cost. There is no conflict in
that, actually using MS's systems to lower or operational costs - a
conflict?

Lets take a look: I don't install ISA, we use WatchGuard, I would
never trust ISA. We do spec XP workstations and 2003 servers and SQL
database servers and Exchange 2003 servers, but we also setup Linux
workstations for shops, install non-MS email servers, install non-MS
web servers, install MySQL databases, and design web applications
that are supported by both ASP/ASP.Net and Mono in addition to Java
and ColdFusionMX. Seems to me we're about 50/50 on the solutions and
save a ton of money on licensing by being a partner and ISV - doesn't
look like a conflict to me, it looks like taking advantage of the
programs that MS puts in place to help businesses that build
solutions WITH MS products.

Looks like a bunch of rationalizations to me. That you cannot see your
obvious conflict of interest due to your business relationship with MS,
is hysterical, but not unexpected, considering your delusions of that
procedural facts are just mere opinions.

--
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"