Stop it MS schmucks!

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

LOL, you advise everyone every chance you get to do so.
Your full of it, and it is yourself.

Please quote me then. Have a nice futile search.

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

 

[Scott M.]

Their called software pirates and MS spends millions each year

And I would agree that all software pirates should wind up in court.
But installing a legally-purchased copy of software on more than one of

your computers isn't piracy.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree. But understand
that just because MS hasn't gone after you, doesn't mean you are correct.

It's a breach of contract, and MS's only legal means of trying to enforce

it is by convincing a judge to rule in their favor.

See now that's where you are playing lawyer again. I don't have to covince
a judge that stealing is illegal, I only need to convince him/her that you
did it.

And since MS has no legal right to know who purchases copies of their

software, let alone who has actually agreed to it, and

MS has no legal right to know what you do in the privacy of your home, so

it's highly unlikely MS would ever convince a

judge to enforce their post-purchase shrinkwrap license usage terms, on

anonymous, private, & non-commercial individuals.

Now that is true and brings us to our point. Microsoft is not trying to
pursue violators of the EULA in the courts (at least not violatiors of the 1
purchase for 1 machine portion of it). They are however, doing something
that is absolutley within thier rights to do, which is to deny you the
ability to use the software in violation of that EULA.

As you, yourself pointed out, if someone were to use Windows on more than
one machine, they would be in "breach of contract", which is a legally
binding document. For that, you could be prosecuted. Most, if not all,
won't be because MS doesn't know who they are, but you keep up your
anti-EULA posts Kurt....

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

(After he stopped laughing.....)

DISCLAIMER (WARNING: PLEASE READ BEFORE CONTINUING):
"By posting another message to anyone, anywhere at anytime you admit
that you (Kurt) are a moron."

I hearby breach the terms of your reply-EULA, so if you would like to
enforce it, then you'll have to sue me.

I hope you can live with my (according to you) legally binding
discalmer posted in a public place that I do not control or have any
affiliation with. I know that you will be ok with it because of the
fee that you paid in order to use this forum, or the registration
form you filled out when first accessing this server.

By the way, could you forward to me (and everyone else) the
permission from Microsoft to impose your legal restrictions on the
use of thier servers? Thanks so much, I just want to run it by my
attorney.

So in other words, you are waiting for me to sue you to prove that my
terms are actually legally enforceable. Thanks you for playing! Next!

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

 

[Scott M.]

So in other words, you are waiting for me to sue you to prove that my

terms are actually legally enforceable. Thanks you for playing! Next!

No, in my words (yours are poison) I'm waiting for you to justify your legal
position for imposing an EULA on a forum that you do not control.

Please remove the "BADSPAM" from my email address if you'd like to send it
to just me and save yourself some embarrasement.

 

[Scott M.]

MS has never been "convicted" of anything.

Patent infringement. Anti-trust Violations.

Actually, no. They have never been "convicted" of anything. Did you visit
them in jail? Let's keep with the facts on this.

Never had the Dept. of Justice on my ass!

You never know until they show up at your door with a subpoena. Keep
talking and we'll see.

You have yet to come up with one fact. Mostly you've said that I'm wrong

without explaining how I'm wrong.

Your right. Oh, except for all that business about how our legal system
actually works and all. Oh yes, there was also that small math fact (2+2=4),
you can use that one if you like.

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

your computers isn't piracy.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree. But
understand that just because MS hasn't gone after you, doesn't mean
you are correct.

For it to be piracy, one would have to invoke copyright law. So what
copyright law makes it illegal for an individual to install a legally
purchased copy of software on more than one computer?

If there is no law that makes it a copyright infringement, then there is
no piracy, only a contract dispute.

it is by convincing a judge to rule in their favor.

See now that's where you are playing lawyer again. I don't have to
covince a judge that stealing is illegal, I only need to convince
him/her that you did it.

First you have to prove it's stealing, which would be a criminal
offense, and a contract dispute would be settled in civil, not criminal,
court.

software, let alone who has actually agreed to it, and
it's highly unlikely MS would ever convince a
anonymous, private, & non-commercial individuals.

Now that is true and brings us to our point. Microsoft is not trying
to pursue violators of the EULA in the courts (at least not
violatiors of the 1 purchase for 1 machine portion of it). They are
however, doing something that is absolutley within thier rights to
do, which is to deny you the ability to use the software in violation
of that EULA.

As you, yourself pointed out, if someone were to use Windows on more
than one machine, they would be in "breach of contract", which is a
legally binding document. For that, you could be prosecuted.

No, you could be sued, just like IBM is being sued by SCO, because SCO
has balls enough to try to get a judge to enforce their license claims.
But just because SCO claims IBM claims SCO has breeched their license,
doesn't mean anything until a judge agrees with them in a court of law.

Most,
if not all, won't be because MS doesn't know who they are, but you
keep up your anti-EULA posts Kurt....

ROFL! I won't hold my breath. MS is too chicken, otherwise it would
have been cheaper for them just to sue one individual, and set the legal
precedent, than go through all the hassle, expense & aggravation of
Product Activation.

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

 

[Scott M.]

An MS employee already confirmed that they were pulled from the server.

And then he explained why.

If you don't enjoy the headace, stop hitting yourself in the head with a
hammer.

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

No, in my words (yours are poison)

Pretty soon, you won't be certain that I'm not the Devil! Ask Mikey
Stevens.

I'm waiting for you to justify
your legal position for imposing an EULA on a forum that you do not
control.

Sorry, just like MS can't justify their legal position for their
imposing "shrinkwrap license" usage terms, in a forum they can't
control, my home, neither can I.

Please remove the "BADSPAM" from my email address if you'd like to
send it to just me and save yourself some embarrasement.

There is no need. I, unlike you, have nothing to be embarrassed about.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.

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

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Obvously, we are not getting anywhere (and I somehow knew that we
wouldn't). Kurt, you can bang out any combination of letters on your
keyboard that you want for as long as you want...And you may, at some
point, produce Shakespere! But, just because you type it, doesn't
make it the way law works.

Precedent is great if you are in a court action and want to show the
law is on your side. Not having precedent does not mean that the law
is NOT on your side. Again you are confusing whether something
is/isn't leagal with whether someone violated that law.

There is clear precedent for MS activation policy. Some of it falls
under copyright law and some of it falls under contract law. There
is no precedent for ignorance.

Again, this is not my opinion (or "supposition"), this IS how our
legal system works. You saying 2 + 2 = 5 has no basis in fact and
the mere fact that you said it does not make it so. I have given you
the "facts" about how our legal system works, you have given your
"opinion" about how you "think" it should work.

You know what? It's not even that I disagree totally with your
position on this. I just believe that you don't understand how to
debate a topic using anything other than your opinions.

Laws are not opinions, they are fact.

Show show us some facts!

So far your nothing but hot air.

I'm trying to think of the best response I could come up with when I
was 7 to "I know you are but what am I? Do you want to get into the
what the meaning of "is" is as well?

I'm sorry Kurt, I can't (well, I'll be honest...won't) fill this
reply with the contents of several hundred texts on United States
law. But hey, Google is free!

Show the law that makes it a fact!

OH MY GOD! You are trying to pass this off as law and precedent?!!
You are, in fact, as stupid as I had initially thought!

PLEASE OH PLEASE tell me that you understand that what you have
posted on your web site is a correct way to get a second copy of
WindowsXP installed but certainly NOT a legal way? PLEASE? If not
then, don't bend over when you drop the soap!

Show us the law that makes what your saying a fact.

Put up or keep whining about me. It's your choice.

And I'm gonna play Nostradamus and predict you'll either not reply, or
avoid showing us all the law that makes what your saying a fact.

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

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Actually, no. They have never been "convicted" of anything. Did you
visit them in jail? Let's keep with the facts on this.

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131606


You never know until they show up at your door with a subpoena. Keep
talking and we'll see.

without explaining how I'm wrong.

Your right. Oh, except for all that business about how our legal
system actually works and all.

That's nothing more than you mistaken opinion about how the legal system
works.

Oh yes, there was also that small math

fact (2+2=4), you can use that one if you like.

Is that where you left off this morning in your math class?

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

 

[Scott M.]

For it to be piracy, one would have to invoke copyright law. So what

copyright law makes it illegal for an individual to install a legally
purchased copy of software on more than one computer?

You keep saying "leagally purchased copy" but you keep leaving out "leagally
used copy". You can't have one without the other and it is that second part
that is the answer to all of your questions.

I can "leagally purchase" an automobile and then "illeagally drive" it down
the street.

Kurt, it is so simple and you are sooo dense! You are purchasing a 1
machine license for this software! If you put it on 2 machines, you are
breaking the licensing agreement. Microsoft is not the inventor or the only
company to use licensing pricing. God, you are thick!

If there is no law that makes it a copyright infringement, then there is
no piracy, only a contract dispute.

No, not dispute. Violation.

First you have to prove it's stealing, which would be a criminal
offense, and a contract dispute would be settled in civil, not criminal,
court.

Strike three, you're out. No, it is not a criminal offense. If they had
reason to suspect a violation of the EULA and they decided they wanted to
pursue it, they would only need to file a complaint with the authorities.
Now I grant you, without much more than that, they wouldn't have much of a
chance. But let's say that hypothetically, there was some guy who ran an
openly anti-MS web site (nothing wrong with that), which on it told people
how to get around the technological barriers of the EULA and indeed violate
the EULA. Let's also say that this person was very active in public forums
for advocating the avoidance of compliance with the EULA and kept posting
links to his site (where the information on how to technologically break the
EULA).

Then a good case for probable cause could be made and a search warrant
issued. If, upon execution of a search warrant, evidence was found of EULA
violation, then that person could have charges filed against him. There is
nothing criminal in filing charges in this way. Again, this is how our
legal system works.

Once again Kurt, I really hope that you keep on believing your own BS
though. Because I'd love to read about you in the papers.

ROFL! I won't hold my breath. MS is too chicken, otherwise it would
have been cheaper for them just to sue one individual, and set the legal
precedent, than go through all the hassle, expense & aggravation of
Product Activation.

Yes, I'm sure that's it. I'm sure Bill paces the office floor wondering how
to get his $199.00 back from you. That's his biggest concern for sure.

Now the REAL fact is that despite your willingness (and the willingness of
others) to violate the EULA, millions of others don't violate it. And that
has saved MS billions of dollars in what is called (not my term)
casual-piracty.

So, in the end (and this is the end of this thread for me, your intellect is
truly dizzying), you keep on "pitching" for "The World According To Kurt"
and I'll get some sleep.

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

And then he explained why.

And what does that have to do with Black Helicopters?

If you don't enjoy the headace, stop hitting yourself in the head
with a hammer.

I feel just fine, thanks.

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

 

[Scott M.]

And I'm gonna play Nostradamus and predict you'll either not reply, or

avoid showing us all the law that makes what your saying a fact.

And I'm going to predict that you won't make the earth explode tommorrow.
That's the easy way out of a good debate Kurt. You've been in enough of
them over the years on these NG's to know how to throw that last desperate
punch.

The "End User Licensing Agreement" is a software purchase agreement
governing the terms of its use. Those terms are bound by various Federal
and Sate laws in the United States. There are many laws that govern the
EULA, some are contract law, copyright law and piracy laws.

The "law" you keep wanting me to produce is actully hundreds of individual
laws combind together to form an area of law. As I mentioned, I will not
transcribe volumes and volumes of text so that you can say "I know you are
but what am I?".

If you don't agree with me, fine. "Ignorance is bliss."

"Ba-Bye"

 

[Scott M.]

MS has never been "convicted" of anything.

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131606

The headline is just that, a headline. Convictions are for people. MS has
been in violation of lots of things (again, I'm not a MS desciple). The
headline is not accurate.

That's nothing more than you mistaken opinion about how the legal system
works.

Oh yes, there was also that small math

Is that where you left off this morning in your math class?

No, we are on 3's now, but I just didn't think you were ready for them.

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

You keep saying "leagally purchased copy" but you keep leaving out
"leagally used copy". You can't have one without the other and it is
that second part that is the answer to all of your questions.

Only a judge can decide whether it is a legal use or not. I can't, you
can't, and neither can MS. Or did we change the Constitution recently?

I can "leagally purchase" an automobile and then "illeagally drive"
it down the street.

Only if the legally elected gov't passed a law that makes it illegal.
There is no law that makes breaking a contract illegal, in and of
itself.

Kurt, it is so simple and you are sooo dense! You are purchasing a 1
machine license for this software!

No, I am sold a copy of a copyrighted computer program, by the previous
owner of that copy, the retailer.

If you put it on 2 machines, you

are breaking the licensing agreement.

Wrong, I'm breaking one term of a "shrinkwrap license," that in my
opinion, is both unconscionable, and violates a rule of positive law.

Microsoft is not the inventor
or the only company to use licensing pricing. God, you are thick!

God, you totally bought all the corporate copyright owner propaganda
hook, line, & sinker.

And not one of them has ever tried to legally enforce a "one computer"
"shrinkwrap license" term on any private non-commercial individual EVER!

No, not dispute. Violation.

No Dispute. Only a judge can determine a contractual violation. Just
like IBM hasn't violated SCO's UNIX license, until SCO proves it by the
preponderance of the evidence.

Strike three, you're out. No, it is not a criminal offense.

LOL! You call breaking contractual terms stealing, yet I'm the one that
is out. ROFL!

If they

had reason to suspect a violation of the EULA and they decided they
wanted to pursue it, they would only need to file a complaint with
the authorities.

Then prove it.

Now I grant you, without much more than that, they

wouldn't have much of a chance. But let's say that hypothetically,
there was some guy who ran an openly anti-MS web site (nothing wrong
with that), which on it told people how to get around the
technological barriers of the EULA and indeed violate the EULA.
Let's also say that this person was very active in public forums for
advocating the avoidance of compliance with the EULA and kept posting
links to his site (where the information on how to technologically
break the EULA).

Then a good case for probable cause could be made and a search warrant
issued.

Why? On what probable cause. I don't own Windows XP, so I have nothing
to circumvent. I'd think a judge would at least want some evidence that
I used the software in question for the warrant over a contract dispute.

If, upon execution of a search warrant, evidence was found
of EULA violation, then that person could have charges filed against
him.

And would the state of Florida be preferring the charges in criminal
court? Civil Court? Or would MS have to sue me?

There is nothing criminal in filing charges in this way.
Again, this is how our legal system works.

Aren't we leaving out the bit about due process? Like just because
charges have been filed doesn't prove anything. That's why we have
trials!

Once again Kurt, I really hope that you keep on believing your own BS
though. Because I'd love to read about you in the papers.
Yawn!


Yes, I'm sure that's it. I'm sure Bill paces the office floor
wondering how to get his $199.00 back from you. That's his biggest
concern for sure.

Now the REAL fact is that despite your willingness (and the
willingness of others) to violate the EULA, millions of others don't
violate it. And that has saved MS billions of dollars in what is
called (not my term) casual-piracty.

You mean "casual copy" piracy, which is defined by MS, not me, as,
"Casual copying is a form of piracy characterized by the sharing of
software between people in a way that infringes on the software's end
user license agreement (EULA)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

So it's not sharing the software between your own computers, it's
sharing software between people. And there really is no need to have
that in the EULA, because that is already prohibited under copyright
law.

So, in the end (and this is the end of this thread for me, your
intellect is truly dizzying), you keep on "pitching" for "The World
According To Kurt" and I'll get some sleep.

LOL! Can't find a law or legal precedent to backup your opinion as I
back up mine.

http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

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

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

And I'm going to predict that you won't make the earth explode
tommorrow.

Since I believe in non-violence that would be a pretty safe bet.

That's the easy way out of a good debate Kurt. You've
been in enough of them over the years on these NG's to know how to
throw that last desperate punch.

Only you are desperate, because you can't back up sh*t. I can show both
law and court decisions to back up mine opinion. Run Away, MicroCoward!

The "End User Licensing Agreement" is a software purchase agreement
governing the terms of its use.

No, it's a "shrinkwrap license." The purchase agreement is between the
consumer & the retailer. Fork over the cash in exchange for a copy of
copyrighted software.

Those terms are bound by various
Federal and Sate laws in the United States. There are many laws that
govern the EULA, some are contract law, copyright law and piracy laws.

The "law" you keep wanting me to produce is actully hundreds of
individual laws combind together to form an area of law.

Post a link.

As I
mentioned, I will not transcribe volumes and volumes of text so that
you can say "I know you are but what am I?".

Sorry, I wouldn't parrot you. I have a lot more self-respect.

If you don't agree with me, fine.

And even if it wasn't fine, I'd still laugh at you, because you'er
nothing but hot air, and I used you to prove my own point. Just because
someone "claims" someone violated a contractual term, doesn't mean a
thing, unless the claimant can prove it in a real court of law.

No rational human being would take the claims of biased party without
proof.

"Ignorance is bliss."

You should know.

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

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

The headline is just that, a headline. Convictions are for people.
MS has been in violation of lots of things (again, I'm not a MS
desciple). The headline is not accurate.

http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/06/23/1830220.shtml?tid=17


No, we are on 3's now, but I just didn't think you were ready for
them.

LOL!

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

 

[Ian Smythe]

Actually, no. They have never been "convicted" of anything. Did you visit
them in jail? Let's keep with the facts on this.




You never know until they show up at your door with a subpoena. Keep
talking and we'll see.



without explaining how I'm wrong.

Your right. Oh, except for all that business about how our legal system
actually works and all. Oh yes, there was also that small math fact (2+2=4),
you can use that one if you like.

Let me close this very long thread by saying that all you legal
beagles need to view what has happened to the law the past few
years. Just look at the very bad legal decisions handed down by
@%^^$$@# judges. If you have money and shady attorneys you can bypass
any law. Examples: OJ. Hinckly, and soon to be Jackson. You goody
two shoes are setting no example, you're only taking up space with
your ranting! And none of this pirating or whatever you want to call
it has depleted Bill's money. He is still the richest man in the
world! And don't forget it!. :-(

 

[purplehaz]

No normal person could afford to take MS to court. They'd tie it up for
years and millions.

 

[purplehaz]

sue me, if they don't, then they

Let's see you get into law school with that argument!

Kurt, you never cease to amaze! Kudos to you!

That is the law. If MS and I had a contract and I broke the terms of the
contract, then it would be up to MS to sue me for breaking the terms of that
contract. Why would I sue MS if I broke the contract? Think people.......