Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[Alias]

Alias, in the case of the house, could you just answer the question instead
of reiterating "absurd analogy" each time? I am asking about that scenario
out of curiosity as to how Spanish law varies from US law. For the sake of
the question, assume it has nothing to do with the thread. It just comes
from a curious person across the ocean.

I don't know. I haven't bought a house here and no one has given me one.

 

[Gregg Hill]

A quick look at the link makes me think that is not the actual law itself,
but an article about someone being absolved of charges for copying music. I
don't want a newspaper article. I want the law itself, and its precise
description of "financial gain."

Could you please send me the actual portion of the law that describes the
term "financial gain" that you have cited previously?

Thank you!

Gregg

 

[Alias]

A quick look at the link makes me think that is not the actual law itself,
but an article about someone being absolved of charges for copying music. I
don't want a newspaper article. I want the law itself, and its precise
description of "financial gain."

Could you please send me the actual portion of the law that describes the
term "financial gain" that you have cited previously?

Thank you!

Gregg

Read the article again. A judge ruled on it. This sets a precedent, just
like in the States. The prosecutor could have taken it to the Spanish
Supreme Court through appeal but chose not to do so.

She (the judge) quoted the law that applies:

""Ni mediaba precio ni aparecían otras contraprestaciones que la propia
de compartir entre diversos usuarios el material del que disponían. Y, a
juicio de esta juzgadora, ello entra en conexión con la posibilidad que
el *artículo 31 de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual* establece de obtener
copias para uso privado sin autorización del autor; sin que se pueda
entender concurrente ese ánimo de obtener un beneficio ilícito",
argumenta la magistrada."

Alias

 

[Gregg Hill]

Alias,

I do not "read" Spanish in the true sense of the word. I took four years of
Spanish in high school because I wanted to be a Spanish teacher, so I
learned sentence structure and grammar, but very little vocabulary. Besides,
that was back in the late 1970s, so most of it is gone. I have one monitor
with a Spanish-English dictionary on it, and your article on the other
monitor. Damn American schools!

My Mom, who I mentioned came from Italy when she was nine, refused to teach
us any Italian. She said, "We are Americans now. We speak English." Too bad
for us. We (six kids) could be WAY ahead if she had taught us. Then again,
if it were truly important to me, I could have learned it in the 29 years
since high school. Life got in the way.

Gregg

 

[Alias]

Alias,

I do not "read" Spanish in the true sense of the word. I took four years of
Spanish in high school because I wanted to be a Spanish teacher, so I
learned sentence structure and grammar, but very little vocabulary. Besides,
that was back in the late 1970s, so most of it is gone. I have one monitor
with a Spanish-English dictionary on it, and your article on the other
monitor. Damn American schools!

My Mom, who I mentioned came from Italy when she was nine, refused to teach
us any Italian. She said, "We are Americans now. We speak English." Too bad
for us. We (six kids) could be WAY ahead if she had taught us. Then again,
if it were truly important to me, I could have learned it in the 29 years
since high school. Life got in the way.

Gregg

US education leaves a lot to be desired. My daughter has learned two
additional languages besides Spanish in High School. Knowing Spanish has
helped me a lot in my life.

Alias

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Interesting (albeit older work) reading:
http://www.llrx.com/features/iplaw2.htm

A good place to start researching Intellectual Propery Laws worldwide...
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/intlip.html

Other:
http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/controlador/links?seccion=menu&len=en

More:
http://www.ecomleb.org/world/laws/eu_countries.asp
(Scroll down to Spain...)
Which led me to:
http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/spain.html

I am trying to find the text of the Spanish copyright law now.

I did find the following:
----
The Copyright Law Spain adopted in November 1987 is designed to redress
historically weak protection accorded movies, videocassettes, sound
recordings and software. It includes computer software as intellectual
property, unlike the prior law. In December 1993, legislation was enacted
which transposed the EU software directive. It includes provisions that
allow for unannounced searches in civil lawsuits and searches do take place
under these provisions.

According to industry sources, Spain has a relatively high level of computer
software piracy despite estimated declines in the last two years. Industry
estimates for 1997 show a drop to 59 percent from 63 percent in 1996.
Therefore, concerned groups have focused increasingly on enforcement, with
industry and government cooperating on a series of problems aimed at
educating the judiciary, police and customs officials to be more rigorous in
their pursuit of this problem.

Motion picture (i.e. video) and audio cassette piracy also remains a
problem. However, thanks to the government prohibition on running cable
across public thoroughfares and strict enforcement of the Copyright Law that
holds that no motion picture can be shown without authorization of the
copyright holder, the incidence of community video piracy has declined.
----

While not necessarily relevant here - it does give more to go on/look for.

Like I said - I am interested in finding the differences. There is no
right/wrong at this point.

 

[arachnid]

Actually, as far as I can tell, there was no response to one of them.

There was no response to four detailed threads. Maybe you sat on them so
long they scrolled off your server.

When I do that, I get ridiculed. When you do the exact same thing,
realize that it was probably for the same reason...you couldn't keep up
with the thread because it has gotten so long.

There is a difference between addressing the points that are
raised, and simply playing back your former posts with no
acknowledgement of the counterarguments.

As to your opinion about going down in flames, several others have
posted views quite to the contrary from you and have agreed with me.
Just because YOU don't agree, doesn't mean my views were shot down.

No matter who agreed with whom, your views were still shot down in flames
because you failed to defend them.

Just because one is allowed to do it, does not make it right.

So you're agreeing that just because software companies are allowed to
restrict installations to a single personal machine, does not make it
right?

 

[Gregg Hill]

OK, now I am confused. You said, "Knowing Spanish has helped me a lot in my
life." I thought you lived in Spain.

I agree with you about US schools. We have Advanced Underwater Basket
Weaving, but we don't teach, at least not when I was kid, a second language
as a mandatory class. I just remembered that in fifth grade that we were
**offered** a Spanish class, but what fifth grader would choose that? Heck,
back then, no one in the city even spoke Spanish.

I used to work with a guy from Colombia. He spoke Spanish, Italian, French,
Portuguese, and was having his kids learn Japanese. I have always wanted to
learn Italian and Spanish, but other things were more important. I could
probably pick up Spanish rather quickly, though, since I have the four years
under my belt.

Gregg

 

[caver1]

Absurd analogy.

Absurd analogy is not an answer its just a tactic to try to ignore
something when you don't know.
Its not a good analogy in the fact is it is a financial gain for you but
it is not the same type of financial gain that you get if you are
pirating something. The first is a gift that has nothing to do with
financial loss to the manufacturer the second is theft that takes away
from the original producer.
Caver1

 

[Gregg Hill]

There was no response to four detailed threads. Maybe you sat on them so
long they scrolled off your server.


There is a difference between addressing the points that are
raised, and simply playing back your former posts with no
acknowledgement of the counterarguments.

Arachnid,

As I stated before, I am one person trying to resond to many posts. If the
threads were missed, it was not intentional. If I missed them, it's knid of
hard to respond to them.

No matter who agreed with whom, your views were still shot down in flames
because you failed to defend them.

I have defended my views multiple times, and several others have agreed with
my views. The views were defended, agreed with by several others, and not
shot down. Again, just because your view is different and you spoke last
does not make you right. If that were true, all I would have to do is answer
each post with something simple, like "absurd analogy" (not your words)
instead of addressing the points, and with your "logic," I would be the
winner. You seem to think that because you had the last word, you had the
right word. Wrong again.

If I steal something, and the judge says, "You're guilty!" and I jump up and
say, "I am innocent!" then the judge shakes his head in disgust but does not
reply, I guess I must be innocent by your logic, because I said it last.

So you're agreeing that just because software companies are allowed to
restrict installations to a single personal machine, does not make it
right?

Oh, good grief! Not even close. That reference was, and has been throughout
this thread, a reference to unethical people ignoring the XP EULA. I gave
some extreme examples to try to pound it into your head that even in the
absence of law, taking something without compensation is wrong. You seem
completely incapable of comprehending that fact.

Microsoft OFFERS you the chance to buy their software, and they as the
manufacturer have the right to stipulate that one license covers one
computer. Once you bought your first license, or had you taken the time to
research the EULA before your purchase, you would know that the EULA covers
one installation. For you to use it in any other way is unethical, even if
you have a law where a judge who does not get hurt by the law has decided
you are allowed to do it, as long as there is no financial gain on your
part, which I have repeatedly proven is not the case.

Before you answer this post, go back and answer the questions asked that
turn the table and make it YOU who is not getting paid.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

Absurd analogy is not an answer its just a tactic to try to ignore
something when you don't know.
Its not a good analogy in the fact is it is a financial gain for you but
it is not the same type of financial gain that you get if you are pirating
something. The first is a gift that has nothing to do with financial loss
to the manufacturer the second is theft that takes away from the original
producer.
Caver1

Now you state, "... the second is theft that takes away from the original
producer." That is what I have been saying all along, but a while back you
were supporting the arguments against my viewpoint, even stating, "At least
you agree with something I said. Maybe you'll come around yet." in response
to my agreement that this thread has gone on way too long. Whose side are
you on?

Gregg

 

[caver1]

Now you state, "... the second is theft that takes away from the original
producer." That is what I have been saying all along, but a while back you
were supporting the arguments against my viewpoint, even stating, "At least
you agree with something I said. Maybe you'll come around yet." in response
to my agreement that this thread has gone on way too long. Whose side are
you on?

Gregg

no, I was pointing out the difference between piracy and the analogy
of something given to you as a gift.
Caver1

 

[caver1]

Caver1

no, I was pointing out the difference between piracy and the analogy of
something given to you as a gift.
Caver1

Sorry I forgot to answer your last question. I am trying to point out
that there is some middle ground here. Where exactly I'm not sure. I
don't totally agree with with either of you. But I do believe that MS,
the RIAA, amongst others are taking unfair advantage of the general
consumer.

 

[Gregg Hill]

My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was
that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's
bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of
what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs.
buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that
the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs.
what would be there if he bought all four licenses).

I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his
bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which
even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that
one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the
supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much,
they fail to look at the whole issue objectively.

I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage,
when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is
the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread.

Gregg Hill

 

[Alias]

OK, now I am confused. You said, "Knowing Spanish has helped me a lot in my
life." I thought you lived in Spain.

I live in Spain but I was born in the USA and I'm a US citizen with a
Spanish "green card".

Alias

 

[caver1]

My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was
that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's
bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of
what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs.
buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that
the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs.
what would be there if he bought all four licenses).

I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his
bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which
even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that
one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the
supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much,
they fail to look at the whole issue objectively.

I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage,
when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is
the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread.

Gregg Hill

I agree with you that there is alot of feeling on both sides and this
discussion will not change anyones minds. Bad analogies were used on
both sides or just misunderstood. Some of this has spilled over from
copywrites/fair use in the music world and cannot apply here.
At the same time now that MS has their monopoly they are trying to make
thieves out of some that are not.

 

[arachnid]

As I stated before, I am one person trying to resond to many posts. If the
threads were missed, it was not intentional. If I missed them, it's knid
of hard to respond to them.

If you don't have time to respond to them, then you shouldn't keep
starting them.

I have defended my views multiple times, and several others have agreed
with my views. The views were defended, agreed with by several others, and
not shot down. Again, just because your view is different and you spoke
last does not make you right.

I didn't say I was right because I was last. I said you failed to
address and refute my points and therefore you lose the argument.

Oh, good grief! Not even close. That reference was, and has been
throughout this thread, a reference to unethical people ignoring the XP
EULA.

Ah, then you must think that just because one is allowed to do it, DOES
make it right? In which case, we're in agreement that since users in some
countries might be allowed to ignore the EULA, that makes it right for
them to do so.

I gave some extreme examples to try to pound it into your head that
even in the absence of law, taking something without compensation is
wrong. You seem completely incapable of comprehending that fact.

The general case isn't at issue. The issue is a very specific one: If
the law clearly states that users aren't bound by certain terms of a EULA,
are they committing an immoral act by clicking "I Agree" and then ignoring
the EULA terms anyway?

Now the seller knew the law when they entered that market and yet you
absolve them of any legal/moral obligation to obey the law, while still
holding the user to a moral obligation to respect a EULA that the seller
knows isn't legally binding. What's the use of having consumer-protection
laws if any corporation can write their own self-serving laws anytime they
want to, and any consumer with a sense of morals has to obey these custom
laws?

And you still haven't dealt with the issue of this user's agreement being
made not to the company or their representative, but to a computer. Yet
again, if I promise a rock I won't throw it into a lake, and then throw
it into the lake anyway, then what moral code have I broken? How is making
a promise to a computer any different than making a promise to a rock?

Microsoft OFFERS you the chance to buy their software, and they as the
manufacturer have the right to stipulate that one license covers one
computer.

They can stipulate anything they want, but only the law gives their
requirements any legal weight.

Once you bought your first license, or had you taken the time to
research the EULA before your purchase, you would know that the EULA
covers one installation.

And if I lived in a country that said that requirement wasn't legally
binding, I would just ignore it. If the local consumer-protection laws are
strong enough I might even be able to sue Microsoft for interfering
in personal use of the product.

For you to use it in any other way is unethical, even if you have a law
where a judge who does not get hurt by the law has decided you are
allowed to do it, as long as there is no financial gain on your part,
which I have repeatedly proven is not the case.

You haven't proven anything. All you've done is presume to know more
about Spanish law than a Spanish judge. You've compounded the error by
making the mistake of interpreting legal terms using ordinary everyday
meanings (and at that, the meaning of an English phrase when it's Spanish
law we're talking about - you DO know that some words don't have exact
translations between languages?)

Definitions are a big part of law. Some Spanish equivalent of "financial
gain" will be strictly defined somewhere in their law. Anything that
doesn't fit that strict definition can't be treated as "financial gain"
for the purposes of the law, even though everyday people might consider it
financial gain under common usage of the phrase.

Before you answer this post, go back and answer the questions asked that
turn the table and make it YOU who is not getting paid.

Or YOU who is giving up hard-earned money for a product that your local
law says you have every right to use in certain ways, and therefore you
have every right to expect to use it in those ways, only you can't because
the seller bundles a legally nonbinding contract that Gregg Hill says
you're morally bound to obey.

You want consumers to be bound by legal/moral laws, yet you absolve
sellers of the very same obligations.

 

[Gregg Hill]

If you don't have time to respond to them, then you shouldn't keep
starting them.

I did not start each individual sub-thread.

I didn't say I was right because I was last. I said you failed to
address and refute my points and therefore you lose the argument.

As far as I am concerned, and other have backed my view, your arguments have
been refuted.

Ah, then you must think that just because one is allowed to do it, DOES
make it right? In which case, we're in agreement that since users in some
countries might be allowed to ignore the EULA, that makes it right for
them to do so.

You obviously have not comprehended the multiple posts in which I have given
examples that clearly state that it is NOT right just because one is allowed
to do it. Go back to the Taliban examples. They were allowed to rape,
torture, and murder. By YOUR LOGIC, i.e., that your law allows it and it's
right, YOUR LOGIC would deem the Taliban's actions to be right. I have been
saying all along that just because one CAN do it does not mean it is right
to do it. That statement does NOT in any way require the converse statement
to be true.

Apparently, you are unable to grasp that SOME things you are allowed to do
can be wrong, like stealing, while others can be right, such as helping an
old lady to cross a street. Your law ALLOWS you to install one license
multiple times, in spite of the fact that it hurts the original developer,
but doing that is wrong. It is theft.

The general case isn't at issue. The issue is a very specific one: If
the law clearly states that users aren't bound by certain terms of a EULA,
are they committing an immoral act by clicking "I Agree" and then ignoring
the EULA terms anyway?

If they voluntarily use that one license on multiple systems, then yes.

Now the seller knew the law when they entered that market and yet you
absolve them of any legal/moral obligation to obey the law, while still
holding the user to a moral obligation to respect a EULA that the seller
knows isn't legally binding. What's the use of having consumer-protection
laws if any corporation can write their own self-serving laws anytime they
want to, and any consumer with a sense of morals has to obey these custom
laws?





And you still haven't dealt with the issue of this user's agreement being
made not to the company or their representative, but to a computer. Yet
again, if I promise a rock I won't throw it into a lake, and then throw
it into the lake anyway, then what moral code have I broken? How is making
a promise to a computer any different than making a promise to a rock?

Because you are not making a promise to a computer. You are making a
promise, via your agreement to the EULA (a contract), between you and the
manufacturer. When you sign a paper contract to do a job or buy a house,
car, etc, using your reasoning, you are promising it to a piece of paper.
What obligation do you have to do the job as you promised, or to pay for the
house or car? Using your reasoning, no obligation, since you promised it to
a piece of paper and not to a human.

They can stipulate anything they want, but only the law gives their
requirements any legal weight.

And as stated MANY times, it does not have to be illegal to wrong.

And if I lived in a country that said that requirement wasn't legally
binding, I would just ignore it. If the local consumer-protection laws are
strong enough I might even be able to sue Microsoft for interfering
in personal use of the product.

And as stated MANY times, it does not have to be illegal to wrong.

You haven't proven anything. All you've done is presume to know more
about Spanish law than a Spanish judge. You've compounded the error by
making the mistake of interpreting legal terms using ordinary everyday
meanings (and at that, the meaning of an English phrase when it's Spanish
law we're talking about - you DO know that some words don't have exact
translations between languages?)

Simple math proves financial gain. The Spanish law **as explained in here**
only applies if you have NO **financial gain** (not my translation!).

Definitions are a big part of law. Some Spanish equivalent of "financial
gain" will be strictly defined somewhere in their law. Anything that
doesn't fit that strict definition can't be treated as "financial gain"
for the purposes of the law, even though everyday people might consider it
financial gain under common usage of the phrase.

And as stated MANY times, it does not have to be illegal to wrong "...even
though everyday people might consider it financial gain under common usage
of the phrase."

Or YOU who is giving up hard-earned money for a product that your local
law says you have every right to use in certain ways, and therefore you
have every right to expect to use it in those ways, only you can't because
the seller bundles a legally nonbinding contract that Gregg Hill says
you're morally bound to obey.

Or you who VOLUNTARILY gives up hard-earned money to buy what YOU KNOW is
ONE license. And as stated MANY times, it does not have to be illegal to
wrong. Until you can grasp that concept, you will never understand ethics.
An ethicla person KNOWS the pruduct was intended to be installed ONE time
per license purchased. Just because your law allows you to go against that
fact, does not make it right.

You want consumers to be bound by legal/moral laws, yet you absolve
sellers of the very same obligations.

I ahve not absolved sellers. I haven't even turned to the dark side of what
Microsoft does. In regard to this thread, it is not relevant. You seem to
think that because they do it, you can, too. If someone is wealthy because
of criminal activity and you take something of theirs, you have still
committed theft, no matter how much of a scum bag the other guy is.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Well, that explains why your English is so good. Cool! A Spanish green
card...now there's a twist!

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

I agree with you that there is alot of feeling on both sides and this
discussion will not change anyones minds. Bad analogies were used on both
sides or just misunderstood. Some of this has spilled over from
copywrites/fair use in the music world and cannot apply here.
At the same time now that MS has their monopoly they are trying to make
thieves out of some that are not.

I agree with you up to the part of Microsoft "trying to make thieves"
comment. Microsoft does not make one a thief. Microsoft OFFERS a product
that is to be installed on one computer per purchase. If one CHOOSES to
install it on many, one CHOOSES to become a thief at that point.

Gregg