Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[Nina DiBoy]

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

Earlier your point was that you were done waisting your time on this
thread and you would do so no more. So why are you still here?

 

[caver1]

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


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.


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.


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?


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


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.


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.


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.

Excellent. I totally agree you have to abide by what is fair and legal.
You cannot have it both ways as it fits your wants as MS does.

 

[caver1]

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.

Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time
the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for
cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So
if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical
or wrong.

 

[caver1]

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

Well that is where we part company. If you buy the software (and I don't
care if you call it a license) your original computer is gone for
whatever reason, you delete the OS from the original, put it on a new
one of your own, you are not stealing. There is no financial gain here.
MS is wrong for not letting you do this once they had a monopoly. And
yes you used to be able to do this.
MS wants it both ways when they believe it benefits them.
Have you looked at their defense in the AT&T case yet?

 

[Alias]

Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time
the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for
cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So
if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical
or wrong.

The EULAs are on the outside of the package now.

Alias

 

[ANONYMOUS]

The EULAs are on the outside of the package now.

I have yet to see this in the UK. However, what is the position with
regard to online shopping? Is one required to ask specifically what the
EULA entails and is the retailer required to employ a staff specifically
to answer such queries? Does this not defeat the purpose of trading
online i.e. reduce cost but if one has to employ extra staff to do this
then we might as well start living in the caves!!

 

[caver1]

The EULAs are on the outside of the package now.

Alias

Sorry but the last computer I bought ,Dell, was 2 years ago and the EULA
wasn't on the outside. THis was also the only one that I didn't build
myself.

 

[arachnid]

I did not start each individual sub-thread.

You had time to post messages, yet claim you didn't have the time to reply
to them.

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

That's fine. I'm content to leave it to anyone with the misfortune to
happen across this thread to read your claims, my replies, and then decide
for themselves whether you've been able to defend your arguments.

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.

So now we're back the other way.

You stated that "Just because one is allowed to do it, does not make it
right" and when I applied this to sellers, your reply was "Oh, good grief!
Not even close. That reference was, and has been throughout this thread, a
reference to unethical people ignoring the XP EULA".

You have one set of rules for sellers and another, more stringent ruleset
for consumers.

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.

Trying to compare using software as permitted under local law in a
civilized country to murder, torture, and rape under a rogue government is
just plain silly.

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.

Just because one CAN do it doesn't necessarily make it wrong, either.

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.

If working within the law hurts the original developer, then he'd
better go do something else for a living and stop trying to blame
consumers for his inability to run a legal business.

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

No. )

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.

Sorry, an inanimate object cannot serve as an agent of the company. More
after this:

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.

I've already dealt with this. There is no legal or moral agreement unless
you've made the other parties aware of the signed contract. Contracts
are usually witnessed by several more people just to confirm your
signature and then copies are sent to all the parties involved. This is
nothing like clicking a virtual button on a computer screen, which leaves
no paper trail and is done with no company representatives or witnesses
present or even aware that you've done so. You can sit there in the
privacy of your home making all the promises to me that you want, but none
of them are legally or morally binding upon you unless I'm somehow aware
that you made them.

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

And as stated many times, you haven't proven that it's wrong.

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

And as stated many times, you haven't proven that it's wrong.

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

Simple common sense proves that you know less about Spanish law than a
Spanish judge does.

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."

And as stated MANY times, you haven't proven that it's wrong.

Or you who VOLUNTARILY gives up hard-earned money to buy what YOU KNOW
is ONE license.

No, I don't KNOW that it's ONE LICENSE. If the laws of my country were to
permit me to use one copy on multiple personal machines, then I would
be buying a copy expecting to be able to use it on MULTIPLE personal
machines no matter what the seller wants. And I would click through the
EULA simply because I knew it had no hold on me. The seller is as
bound by the laws of the land as I am. I am under no moral obligation to
let the seller off the hook that he's VOLUNTARILY placed himself on.

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

And as stated MANY times, you haven't proven that it's 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.

I see you know as much about ethics as you do about Spanish law.

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.

Want to bet?

My girlfriend calls me a "moral pragmatist". By the act of trying
to steal from me, someone has said that it's OK to steal. By the act of
trying to cheat me, they've said that it's OK to cheat. By the act of
trying to lie to me, they've said that it's OK to lie. In the act of
doing these things they've said that those are the new rules they want to
play by. Depending on the situation, I'll either accept their request or
refuse to deal under one-sided rules that leave me at a strong
disadvantage.

"Two wrongs don't make a right" doesn't apply here. I'm not *trying*
to turn a wrong into a right. The other party has requested that we play
by a different set of rules than is common and, nice guy that I am, I've
accepted their request.


BTW that's a really gaping hole in your position that we haven't even
started on yet - your morals aren't necessarily everyone else's morals.

 

[Gregg Hill]

I just couldn't resist. I was foolish to think that I could convince someone
to have ethics. And you?

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

Well that is where we part company. If you buy the software (and I don't
care if you call it a license) your original computer is gone for whatever
reason, you delete the OS from the original, put it on a new one of your
own, you are not stealing. There is no financial gain here. MS is wrong
for not letting you do this once they had a monopoly. And yes you used to
be able to do this.

If you have a retail license, you already have the right to do that, per the
EULA. And, yes, you still can do this, legally and ethically, with a retail
license, which costs only slightly more than an OEM license. If you bought
an OEM license, then it dies with the original system with which it was
sold, because of the price break given (a small one, in reality) on the OEM
price vs. retail price of the software. That is why I never sell a server
with OEM software. What is being discussed in these threads, and what
started it all, was a discussion of installing ONE license on multiple
computers, and although not specifically stated, it meant **simultaneously**
running ONE license on multiple systems.

MS wants it both ways when they believe it benefits them.
Have you looked at their defense in the AT&T case yet?

No, I have not, but that still does not excuse taking from them, no matter
how bad they are. Again, it is a voluntary purchase.

 

[Ayush]

Oh my GOD !!!! This thread have over 200 posts (According to Web Interface).

--
Ayush [ Be ''?'' Happy ]

Search - www.Google.com | Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
Snip your long urls - http://snipurl.com/

Replied to [[email protected]]'s message :
-----------------------------------------------------------

 

[Alias]

Oh my GOD !!!! This thread have over 200 posts (According to Web Interface).

MS' scammy licensing program is a popular subject.

Alias

 

[caver1]

If you have a retail license, you already have the right to do that, per the
EULA. And, yes, you still can do this, legally and ethically, with a retail
license, which costs only slightly more than an OEM license. If you bought
an OEM license, then it dies with the original system with which it was
sold, because of the price break given (a small one, in reality) on the OEM
price vs. retail price of the software. That is why I never sell a server
with OEM software. What is being discussed in these threads, and what
started it all, was a discussion of installing ONE license on multiple
computers, and although not specifically stated, it meant **simultaneously**
running ONE license on multiple systems.



No, I have not, but that still does not excuse taking from them, no matter
how bad they are. Again, it is a voluntary purchase.

MS is the one taking these rights away. They are slowing eroding them by
each time a new release of their OS is released you can do less and less
with it. You could at one time buy the software. Then it turns into a
license. They will one day go to subscription only. This slow erosion
puts some people to sleep and they think they never had these rights so
everyone else must be wrong.
You had better do your research. MS wants to put everyones else's
software into the copywrite realm the state that everyone else's
software copywrites have no legal footing. By this statement they put
theirs in the same position. You cannot have one playing field for one
and another for everyone else. Copywrite protection has gone way to far
in the US. Even patents connot last as long legally. And an individuals
patent is not his/her intellectual property?
You can only put windows or any of their software on more than one
machine if MS decides to let you out of the kindness of their heart.
If they decide if you are a thief you cannot whether you are or not. No
recourse. Yes you can go to other software. But at the same time through
MS unethical\illegal conduct they have forced competitors out of the
market place so to do business\make a living you have to use their
products. And yes this has been proven in court more than once.
Remember with Vista they want to limit that to one change. Then
it will be zero.
Most people do not have the same moral\ethical beliefs that you or I
have but what they do have is still legal so we have no right to tell
them that they are wrong. You just don't go against your own conscience.
And according to US antitrust laws many of MS business practices are
wrong. These were put into place to stop one from becoming a monopoly
then turning the screws so the consumer has to start paying more for
less and less. This includes less options in competition.
But as I have stated earlier. If you want one set of playing rules you
cannot complain if others want to use the same rules. It cannot be right
on your part and wrong for everyone else.

 

[caver1]

MS' scammy licensing program is a popular subject.

Alias

"We'll continue to try to grow Windows share at the expense of Linux.

That's kind of our job. But to the degree that people are going to deploy

Linux, we want SUSE Linux to have the highest percent share of that,

because only a customer who has SUSE Linux actually has paid properly for

the use of intellectual property from Microsoft." Steve Ballmer

So I guess now we are thieves if we use Linux.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

I just couldn't resist. I was foolish to think that I could convince someone
to have ethics. And you?

Gregg

I never said anything to the effect that I would stop posting in this
thread.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

The EULAs are on the outside of the package now.

Alias

For OEMs or retail or both?

 

[Alias]

For OEMs or retail or both?

Don't know about Retail but the generic OEMs have them on the outside now.

Alias

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Don't know about Retail but the generic OEMs have them on the outside now.

Alias

Good to know. Thanks for the information!

 

[margp]

first key doesn't work now
it worked