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!"

Good advice Kimmy, I normally try to stay away but sometimes I just
can't resist.
Masochistic.

Like a cockroach that won't go away, very annoying!

You shouldn't be to hard on yourself. Next time point the nozzle on the
RAID can down your throat.

--
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!"

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!. :-(

You forgot about the US Supreme Court handing the presidency over to the
Usurper George. My personal favorite for worst recent non-criminal
legal decision.

But the courts worldwide seem to be dealing corporate copyright owners
blow after blow recently. DVD Jon was found innocent for a second time
in Norway for creating DeCSS. A Canadian court rules that downloading
off of P2P is legal. The RIAA has been found to be misapplying the
subpoena powers under the DMCA. A US Federal Judge basically tells SCO
to put up or shut.

The rule of Law is only flawed in it's application by imperfect human
beings, not in it's form, and is a hell of a lot better than the
alternatives, such as dictatorial rule or anarchy.

--
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!"

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.......

Please! If MS writes it, it's automatically legal, if I write it he
wants incontrovertible proof. He's just a Bruce-Chambers-in-training
kinda hypocrite.

--
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!"

 

[Les Herrman]

"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!"


Yeah, I wasn't quick enough. I only got the header info, with the
message not avaible on the server message. And now any reply I tried to
post to that thread, doesn't show up at all.

Sorry but at 9:30 AM on the 23rd. They are still there on the MS
Server.

 

[Testy]

I am sure if any lawyer thought he could win the case he would take it in a
contingency basis. But of course lawyers would not touch it if there was not
even a remote chance of winning, which there isn't. END OF SUBJECT

Testy

 

[purplehaz]

No they wouldn't cause the damages you could actually sue ms for would be to
use xp on multiple computers(making the eula invalid). That's what the case
would be about. There would be no cash settlement, that's why a lawyer would
not take it. MS would drag it thru the courts costing millions and the
lawyer isn't suing for money so why would he take it. They have other people
to get money from. So NOT the end of the subject. Next theory please.

 

[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!"

Sorry but at 9:30 AM on the 23rd. They are still there on the MS
Server.

I reposted one but not the other. And if you downloaded the messages
before they were pulled, then you'd still see them in your newsreader.

--
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.]

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.......

And I say "read and think people". MS has not "effectively & legally allowed
my breaking of their usage terms" if they haven't sued you. They still
retain the right to do so and it doesn't mean you haven't broken the law.

Kurt keeps stating that it's up to MS to sue (and he's right in that) but he
goes on to say that a judge needs to find a party guilty in order to prove
the validity of the law in the first place and that is complete garbage and
not at all how the law works.

If I drive drunk and hit someone and kill them, there is a possibility that
I could flee the scene and escape without anyone catching me (not smart at
all, but for the purpose of our discusstion...).

Now, if I do this, have I broken the law? Of course! If I never wind up in
court in front of a judge, it will not change the fact that I have broken
the law.

If I am caught and do go to court, what will be proved or disproved is NOT
the validity of the law! It will be whether I have broken it.

Kurt asserts that "no one ever" has been charged with breaking a EULA and
therefore it must be because a EULA are not leagally binding contract. He
goes on and on about a judge needing to find him guilty in order for the law
to stand. He is infactic about using his own terminology like "shrink
wrapped license" as if it somehow invalidates what a contract is.

THE SINGLE POINT is that Kurt believes that contract, copyright and piracy
laws have no leagal precident. I say, I hope he has the opportunity to find
out for himself!

 

[purplehaz]

them
And I say "read and think people". MS has not "effectively & legally allowed
my breaking of their usage terms" if they haven't sued you. They still
retain the right to do so and it doesn't mean you haven't broken the law.

Kurt keeps stating that it's up to MS to sue (and he's right in that) but he
goes on to say that a judge needs to find a party guilty in order to prove
the validity of the law in the first place and that is complete garbage and
not at all how the law works.

If I drive drunk and hit someone and kill them, there is a possibility that
I could flee the scene and escape without anyone catching me (not smart at
all, but for the purpose of our discusstion...).

Now, if I do this, have I broken the law? Of course! If I never wind up in
court in front of a judge, it will not change the fact that I have broken
the law.

If I am caught and do go to court, what will be proved or disproved is NOT
the validity of the law! It will be whether I have broken it.

Kurt asserts that "no one ever" has been charged with breaking a EULA and
therefore it must be because a EULA are not leagally binding contract. He
goes on and on about a judge needing to find him guilty in order for the law
to stand. He is infactic about using his own terminology like "shrink
wrapped license" as if it somehow invalidates what a contract is.

THE SINGLE POINT is that Kurt believes that contract, copyright and piracy
laws have no leagal precident. I say, I hope he has the opportunity to find
out for himself!

I understand your point, but its kinda the same as the old saying..... If a
tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a
sound? If you break a contract and the party chooses not to use its rights
and sue the person who broke it, in the courts eyes is it a broken contract?
The court doesn't know that this offense has occurred so how could it see it
as a broken contract if it doesn't know the offense occurred? In the US you
are innocent until proven guilty, so in the eyes of the court wouldn't that
mean the contract is not broken until a judge says so? Just that you have
the potential to be convicted of breaking that contract and law. Until your
proven guilty or get a judgement against you it is just potential charges of
breaking the law. Once convicted, in the eyes of the court, you have now
broken the law? But lets forget all that for a moment. The reason for these
posts was cause MS censored kurts posts and no matter what you think of the
eula or how you interpret the law or what you think of kurt, ms should not
censor selective users posts, it makes them look childish and scared.

 

[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 say "read and think people". MS has not "effectively & legally
allowed my breaking of their usage terms" if they haven't sued you.
They still retain the right to do so and it doesn't mean you haven't
broken the law.

Nor does it mean that you have broken the law either. "Read & think
people."

Get real!

Kurt keeps stating that it's up to MS to sue (and he's right in that)
but he goes on to say that a judge needs to find a party guilty in
order to prove the validity of the law in the first place and that is
complete garbage and not at all how the law works.

The judge must rule who has won & lost the law suit. If I sue you for
being an idiot, does that mean you are, or do you have the opportunity
to defend yourself in court?

If I drive drunk and hit someone and kill them, there is a
possibility that I could flee the scene and escape without anyone
catching me (not smart at all, but for the purpose of our
discusstion...).

Or you could leave the scene of the accident, go to a bar, so then the
prosecutor wouldn't be able to prove whether you got drunk prior to or
after the accident beyond a reasonable doubt. But here you go again
comparing a criminal trial with a civil one.

Now, if I do this, have I broken the law? Of course! If I never
wind up in court in front of a judge, it will not change the fact
that I have broken the law.

Unless you can prove otherwise. That's why we go through the bother and
expense of trials. Otherwise we might as well just let the cops execute
summary justice.

If I am caught and do go to court, what will be proved or disproved
is NOT the validity of the law!

What Law? You have yet to come up with one. MS's EULA, nor any
contract, is a law unto itself!

It will be whether I have broken it.

It will be absolutely nothing.

Kurt asserts that "no one ever" has been charged with breaking a EULA
and therefore it must be because a EULA are not leagally binding
contract.

No. Not one EULA usage term has ever been legally enforced by a court
upon a private individual, so the validity of it's legal enforceability
is suspect, at the very least.

He goes on and on about a judge needing to find him guilty

in order for the law to stand.

What law? The EULA is not a law!

He is infactic about using his own
terminology like "shrink wrapped license" as if it somehow
invalidates what a contract is.

That's what the EULA is under the law, since the End User doesn't get a
chance to see the actual terms until after the sale and after the
shrinkwrap is broken.

As opposed to a real software license, like MS's VL, where the terms are
agreed upon prior to any exchange of money.

THE SINGLE POINT is that Kurt believes that contract, copyright and
piracy laws have no leagal precident.

Wrong! I never said that. I use both copyright law & court decisions
to back up my opinions, unlike you, using nothing but hot air.

http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

I say, I hope he has the

opportunity to find out for himself!

So do I!

--
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.]

I understand your point, but its kinda the same as the old saying..... If
a

tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a
sound? If you break a contract and the party chooses not to use its rights
and sue the person who broke it, in the courts eyes is it a broken

contract?

This is not at all what I was saying. I was responding to Kurt's assertion
that a judge convicting me of a crime is the same thing as that judge
determining that the law is valid by convicting me of a crime. Also, Kurt's
assertion that by NOT persuing me, MS somehow has abdocated their rights to
enforce the EULA at any point thereafter.

The reason for these posts was cause MS censored kurts posts and no matter what you think of the
eula or how you interpret the law or what you think of kurt, ms should not
censor selective users posts, it makes them look childish and scared.

If you had read the MS response as to why his posts were removed, you would
have seen that his posts were not specifically targeted, but they did
contain information in them that clearly instructs users how to get around
the EULA. MS owns these servers, you do not have a "right" to post anything
you want on them. They do have the "right" to remove any content they want.
This is similar to email in a corporate environment. The company owns the
email system and as such, they can look at your email if they desire without
your permission.

 

[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!"

This is not at all what I was saying. I was responding to Kurt's
assertion that a judge convicting me of a crime is the same thing as
that judge determining that the law is valid by convicting me of a
crime.

No you're the one that keeps confusing criminal with civil law. I am
quite aware of the difference

Also, Kurt's assertion that by NOT persuing me, MS somehow has

abdocated their rights to enforce the EULA at any point thereafter.

Actually, I was talking about, since I announce to MS over two years
ago, that I broke their EULA term. The statute of limitation for
persuing a civil suit is two years, I believe.

If you had read the MS response as to why his posts were removed, you
would have seen that his posts were not specifically targeted, but
they did contain information in them that clearly instructs users how
to get around the EULA.

This time maybe, if you believe that that was the only thread was
corrupted by not synching up up to servers. This is not the first time
that my posts have disappeared off the server either. It's only the
first time you read about it.

MS owns these servers, you do not have a
"right" to post anything you want on them. They do have the "right"
to remove any content they want. This is similar to email in a
corporate environment.

It is? Then where's my effin' paycheck!

The company owns the email system and as
such, they can look at your email if they desire without your
permission.

Then don't call it public, if your gonna selectively pick and choose
what the public sees.

--
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!"

 

[purplehaz]

If
contract?

This is not at all what I was saying. I was responding to Kurt's assertion
that a judge convicting me of a crime is the same thing as that judge
determining that the law is valid by convicting me of a crime. Also, Kurt's
assertion that by NOT persuing me, MS somehow has abdocated their rights to
enforce the EULA at any point thereafter.

K, I got your point now.

matter
what you think of the
If you had read the MS response as to why his posts were removed, you would
have seen that his posts were not specifically targeted, but they did
contain information in them that clearly instructs users how to get around
the EULA. MS owns these servers, you do not have a "right" to post anything
you want on them. They do have the "right" to remove any content they want.
This is similar to email in a corporate environment. The company owns the
email system and as such, they can look at your email if they desire without
your permission.

I did read it, but that's just a cop out. Give me a break. I've been posting
on this group for 6-8 months and we all know that the MVP's and MFST posters
do not like Kurt. They target him on purpose cause they are afraid of what
he has on his website. You can believe what you want, I beleive what I want.
And also, all kurt does is put a link to a website. He doesn't put the info
about the eula in his posts and on his website he can put up anything he
wants and in a newsgroup he can put any links in his posts he wants. Sure ms
could pull them saying he violated some unwritten rule, but that's bs. Any
intelligent adult can see whats going on here. Why do I never see anyone
elses posts getting pulled when they tell people how to get around the eula?
I don't see the harm in presenting information from both sides of the coin
and then let users make informed decisions. This is what's wrong with people
now-a-days and especially parents. They preach and don't teach. To teach you
have to present all available info whether its wrong or right and explain
what is wrong and right. Just like the parent thats worried their child will
do drugs. So instead of talking about the bad and possibly good of drugs
they just say NO, don't you dare do that. Well any kid at that point will
try it for shear spite. Now I'm off topic here, but just trying to make a
point. I always say present all available info, whether it's wrong or right,
bad or good, explain why this is right and why this is wrong and then the
person understand the whole scope of it and can make an informed decision.
To censor someone cause you think the info is wrong is just plain
un-american. To hide what is bad or wrong information from people is not the
way to teach them what is right. For people to make the right choice they
have to know what wrong is. If Kurts info is wrong, let him post it, then
people will know what the wrong info is. If his info is right then everyone
wins. Why are people so scared to look at and listen to both sides of the
coin.

 

[Scott M.]

The judge must rule who has won & lost the law suit. If I sue you for

being an idiot, does that mean you are, or do you have the opportunity
to defend yourself in court?

KURT, WAKE UP...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE!! I am talking
about the fact that a law doesn't need a verdict in order to be a law. YOU
ARE RIGHT IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE, but that's NOT what I said, nor is it
what I'm talking about!

Or you could leave the scene of the accident, go to a bar, so then the
prosecutor wouldn't be able to prove whether you got drunk prior to or
after the accident beyond a reasonable doubt. But here you go again
comparing a criminal trial with a civil one.

And, going to another bar, wouldn't change the fact that it is illegal to
drink & drive and leave the scene of an accident. Same point as above!!
There doesn't need to be a verdict for a law to be broken!

Unless you can prove otherwise. That's why we go through the bother and
expense of trials. Otherwise we might as well just let the cops execute
summary justice.

Again, you are thinking about how to avoid a guilty verdict and that is NOT
what I'm talking about. Whether you are found guilty or not, if you did, in
fact, do the drink/drive & hit/run, then you broke the law. Finding you not
guilty doesn't mean the law is invalid.

What Law? You have yet to come up with one. MS's EULA, nor any
contract, is a law unto itself!

No, you have yet to understand that there isn't just "one" law that covers
the EULA and that is why I haven't copied volumes of text into these
messages. The EULA is enforcable under many different laws found in the
categories of contract law, copyright law, and piracy laws (I wonder why you
keep saying I haven't come up with any laws when I keep repeating this).

He goes on and on about a judge needing to find him guilty

What law? The EULA is not a law!

No (he said as if talking to a 3 year old), and no one ever said it was.
The EULA is a "contract" and its enforcement is covered by the areas of law
stated above.

That's what the EULA is under the law, since the End User doesn't get a
chance to see the actual terms until after the sale and after the
shrinkwrap is broken.

As opposed to a real software license, like MS's VL, where the terms are
agreed upon prior to any exchange of money.

A simple search of "EULA" on Microsoft's web site brings up thier EULAs for
virtually any product that has one. A buyer can certainly read this before
making his/her purchase.

Wrong! I never said that. I use both copyright law & court decisions
to back up my opinions, unlike you, using nothing but hot air.

http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

No Kurt, it is you that hasn't cited any facet of any law or area of law.
You keep pointing us to your web site, which does have links to leagal
precedings, but I wonder if you've ever taken the time to read what's on
those links.

From your web page: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Paragraph (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.,
section (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.

This doesn't say you can install the software on multiple machines
simultaneously, it says you can make a backup copy for yourself.

Also, from your web page about whether or not the EULA is enforceable:
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

What you failed to mention is that the EULA was upheld in that case.
http://www.uniforum.org/news/html/publications/ufm/dec96/legal.html

 

[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!"

KURT, WAKE UP...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE!! I am
talking about the fact that a law doesn't need a verdict in order to
be a law. YOU ARE RIGHT IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE, but that's NOT what
I said, nor is it what I'm talking about!

What law?

And, going to another bar, wouldn't change the fact that it is
illegal to drink & drive and leave the scene of an accident. Same
point as above!! There doesn't need to be a verdict for a law to be
broken!

But I haven't broken any law until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The standard for civil suit, would be by the preponderance of the
evidence, but until a court rules I've broken a law, I'm not guilty of
anything. Your assumption that a law has been broken doesn't mean crap.

Again, you are thinking about how to avoid a guilty verdict and that
is NOT what I'm talking about. Whether you are found guilty or not,
if you did, in fact, do the drink/drive & hit/run, then you broke the
law. Finding you not guilty doesn't mean the law is invalid.

Who said anything about invalidating a law?

No, you have yet to understand that there isn't just "one" law that
covers the EULA and that is why I haven't copied volumes of text into
these messages. The EULA is enforcable under many different laws
found in the categories of contract law, copyright law, and piracy
laws (I wonder why you keep saying I haven't come up with any laws
when I keep repeating this).

Because you haven't yet come up with even one.

No (he said as if talking to a 3 year old), and no one ever said it
was. The EULA is a "contract" and its enforcement is covered by the
areas of law stated above.

I see no law "stated above."

A simple search of "EULA" on Microsoft's web site brings up thier
EULAs for virtually any product that has one. A buyer can certainly
read this before making his/her purchase.

Only if they have web access. And MS changes their EULA though security
updates, like they did with 2K SP3. Was that available on line prior to
the first sale of 2K? You better believe it wasn't!

No Kurt, it is you that hasn't cited any facet of any law or area of
law. You keep pointing us to your web site, which does have links to
leagal precedings, but I wonder if you've ever taken the time to read
what's on those links.

From your web page: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Paragraph (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
Copy., section (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.

This doesn't say you can install the software on multiple machines
simultaneously, it says you can make a backup copy for yourself.

And that is preceded by the word "or."

I don't know how many times I've had to explain what "or" means.
[Shaking head]

"(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."

That means that either 1 *or* 2 can be used to legally infringe, not
that 1 *and* 2 must be followed to legally infringe.

OR - http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/or.html

AND - http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/and.html

Also, from your web page about whether or not the EULA is enforceable:
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Yep, you finally read it. And here's the entire quote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)."

How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold."
This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap
license, into a software license. Unfortunately with a copy of retail
software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it.

The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME
of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the
retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either,
but the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that
copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2
owners of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the
software.

Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three
times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. Denying reality
happened three times! Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a
shrinkwrap license too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap
license said that the TV was license not sold?! People own every single
retail product they buy, and there is no legal precedent that says
anything to the contrary! That is the legal status quo at the present!

MS's post-sale EULA is not a legitimate software usage license, that
only confers limited rights to use a copy of software, but is only a
shrinkwrap license on a retail copy of software, which is sold to the
new owner of that copy by the retailer. Congress put certain
limitations on the rights of copyright owners, in other words, they gave
owners of a copy the right to infringe in certain circumstances. [And
under certain circumstances one does not even need to be an owner of a
copy in order to legally infringe, though none of those circumstances
are applicable to this discussion.]

What is a copy? "'Copies' are material objects, other than
phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later
developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or
device. The term 'copies' includes the material object, other than a
phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html

Owner of Copy and owner of Copyright are two separate & distinct things
under Title 17. Copies are material objects, or property, and Copyright
is not.

"Section 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of
material object - Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive
rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material
object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any
material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is
first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted
work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does
transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a
copyright convey property rights in any material object." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html

Which brings us to Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117, and MS's post-sale
attempt to rewrite it through a shrinkwrap license. The copy of
software is sold to you, thus you are the owner of a copy, and Congress
through Copyright law gave owners of a copy of software the right to
infringe.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
What law does MS's EULA violate?
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights:
Computer programs

(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 following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making
use of the software together with a previously unknown computer 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"

You see, I've have my opinion all though out. You are just hacking to
try to convince others that you know what you're talking about, but it's
quite obvious that you don't.

What you failed to mention is that the EULA was upheld in that case.
http://www.uniforum.org/news/html/publications/ufm/dec96/legal.html

The "shrinkwrap license" was upheld as a commercial use contract for a
derivitive database, not as a post-sale software usage contract on
private non-commerial individuals. So again I challenge you and
everyone to find laws & court precedent to back up MS FUD-ULA nonsense
about imposing the "One Computer" computer term on private individuals.

--
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 Merrithew]

A Canadian court rules that downloading
off of P2P is legal.

Whoa, better clarify that. There was no court case -- the Copyright
Board, in hearings to establish whether or not levies on recording media
and potential digital media playback devices should be applied/increased,
stated that in *their interpretation* of the law, downloading would be
legal. The Canadian recording industry disagreed. There's been no court
case to establish any precedent, though the industry is making rumblings
about beginning RIAA-style lawsuits against P2P uploaders in Canada.

There's also a case that will soon be argued before the Supreme Court on
whether ISPs should be made to pay a tariff on each subscriber for
alleged copyright infringements by subscribers. The industry wants a 25-
cent tariff on every subscriber (!), *plus* 10% of any ISP advertising
revenue (!!). If *that* goes through, you bet your ass I'm gonna start
downloading *and* uploading on the P2Ps like mad, because that cost is
gonna get passed down to me, and I may as well get what I'll be paying
for!

 

[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!"

Kurt,

Your posts appeared on a portion of the thread that was removed.
Due to an issue with the replication between msnews.microsoft.com and
news.microsoft.com - the original post by John did not make it to one
of those 2 "servers" and thus an inappropriate response was removed
which your 3 posts and 1 by Tim were attached to.
Having said that I have seen your posts and one contained
inappropriate language and at least one other was yet again you
"advising" othersto breach the terms that they agree to in the EULA
to install Windows.

"Bastard" is not a vulgarity.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/bastard.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bastard

Slang doesn't mean it's a vulgarity or inappropriate language.

"F*ck" - Dictionary.com

"F*ck" - Encarta

See the difference? Just because you don't like it that many consumers think of Microsoft as just a bunch of "greedy bastards," doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is inappropriate to post those thoughts to this group. This is a peer to peer support group for people that have problems with WinXP, not a pro-Microsoft, sweep all the problems under the carpet, circle-jerk.

And you still have never quoted me "advising" anyone to breech the EULA. Why? Because, unlike MS, I think each individual should come to their own judgment on the matter of the FUD-ULA's usage terms.

--
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!"

Whoa, better clarify that. There was no court case -- the Copyright
Board, in hearings to establish whether or not levies on recording
media and potential digital media playback devices should be
applied/increased, stated that in *their interpretation* of the law,
downloading would be legal. The Canadian recording industry
disagreed. There's been no court case to establish any precedent,
though the industry is making rumblings about beginning RIAA-style
lawsuits against P2P uploaders in Canada.

There's also a case that will soon be argued before the Supreme Court
on whether ISPs should be made to pay a tariff on each subscriber for
alleged copyright infringements by subscribers. The industry wants a
25- cent tariff on every subscriber (!), *plus* 10% of any ISP
advertising revenue (!!). If *that* goes through, you bet your ass
I'm gonna start downloading *and* uploading on the P2Ps like mad,
because that cost is gonna get passed down to me, and I may as well
get what I'll be paying for!

I stand corrected! 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!"

 

[buttplug]

-----Original Message-----

the old saying.....
If not to use its
rights to Kurt's
assertion crime. Also,
Kurt's abdocated their rights
to

K, I got your point now.
kurts posts and no
matter of kurt, ms should
not were removed, you
would a "right" to post
anything any content they
want. if they desire
without
I did read it, but that's just a cop out. Give me a break. I've been posting
on this group for 6-8 months and we all know that the MVP's and MFST posters
do not like Kurt. They target him on purpose cause they are afraid of what
he has on his website. You can believe what you want, I beleive what I want.
And also, all kurt does is put a link to a website. He doesn't put the info
about the eula in his posts and on his website he can put up anything he
wants and in a newsgroup he can put any links in his posts he wants. Sure ms
could pull them saying he violated some unwritten rule, but that's bs. Any
intelligent adult can see whats going on here. Why do I never see anyone
elses posts getting pulled when they tell people how to get around the eula?
I don't see the harm in presenting information from both sides of the coin
and then let users make informed decisions. This is what's wrong with people
now-a-days and especially parents. They preach and don't teach. To teach you
have to present all available info whether its wrong or right and explain
what is wrong and right. Just like the parent thats worried their child will
do drugs. So instead of talking about the bad and possibly good of drugs
they just say NO, don't you dare do that. Well any kid at that point will
try it for shear spite. Now I'm off topic here, but just trying to make a
point. I always say present all available info, whether it's wrong or right,
bad or good, explain why this is right and why this is wrong and then the
person understand the whole scope of it and can make an informed decision.
To censor someone cause you think the info is wrong is just plain
un-american. To hide what is bad or wrong information from people is not the
way to teach them what is right. For people to make the right choice they
have to know what wrong is. If Kurts info is wrong, let him post it, then
people will know what the wrong info is. If his info is right then everyone
wins. Why are people so scared to look at and listen to both sides of the
coin.

To be fair, I have seen them pull other posts. For
example, ones which have virus attachments. Ricky and I
have also had our posts pulled in the past. Some one has
pulled selective posts of ours, anyway. This seems to
indicate that they are being consistently chicken. rofl!

Besides, Bill Gates has a severe case of cranial-rectal
inversion (otherwise he would use me), henceforth people
like us get stiffed!

 

[buttplug]

-----Original Message-----

KURT, WAKE UP...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT GUILT OR INNOCENCE!! I am talking
about the fact that a law doesn't need a verdict in order to be a law. YOU
ARE RIGHT IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE, but that's NOT what I said, nor is it
what I'm talking about!


And, going to another bar, wouldn't change the fact that it is illegal to
drink & drive and leave the scene of an accident. Same point as above!!
There doesn't need to be a verdict for a law to be broken!


Again, you are thinking about how to avoid a guilty verdict and that is NOT
what I'm talking about. Whether you are found guilty or not, if you did, in
fact, do the drink/drive & hit/run, then you broke the law. Finding you not
guilty doesn't mean the law is invalid.


No, you have yet to understand that there isn't just "one" law that covers
the EULA and that is why I haven't copied volumes of text into these
messages. The EULA is enforcable under many different laws found in the
categories of contract law, copyright law, and piracy laws (I wonder why you
keep saying I haven't come up with any laws when I keep repeating this).


No (he said as if talking to a 3 year old), and no one ever said it was.
The EULA is a "contract" and its enforcement is covered by the areas of law
stated above.


A simple search of "EULA" on Microsoft's web site brings up thier EULAs for
virtually any product that has one. A buyer can certainly read this before
making his/her purchase.


No Kurt, it is you that hasn't cited any facet of any law or area of law.
You keep pointing us to your web site, which does have links to leagal
precedings, but I wonder if you've ever taken the time to read what's on
those links.

From your web page: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Paragraph (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.,
section (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.

This doesn't say you can install the software on multiple machines
simultaneously, it says you can make a backup copy for yourself.

Also, from your web page about whether or not the EULA is enforceable:
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

What you failed to mention is that the EULA was upheld in that case.
http://www.uniforum.org/news/html/publications/ufm/dec96/l egal.html

Geez Scott, you are just such a moron! Just becuase there
is such a thing as contract law has no bearing on making
any private contract such as M$'s EULA a law. Let me
rephrase this incase your peabrain didn't soak it in the
first time: Breaking the M$ EULA contract is not illegal,
becuase even though there is contract law, contract law
does not make all private contracts illegal to breach!
What part of IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BREAK A PRIVATE CONTRACT
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!?

Besides, Bill Gates has a severe case of cranial-rectal
inversion (otherwise he would use me), henceforth people
like us get stiffed!