I see that everyone else has given up on you, but I'll give it one last
shot, then you can reply all you want and it will be ignored. No, in your
silly reasoning, this is not conceding defeat of my ideas, it is merely
recognizing that there is probably nothing in the world that I can say that
will get you to under the concept of theft.
Answers in line, as usual.
Alias said:
If I buy it, I think I should be able to install it on as many computers
as the I like.
Let's look at your statement, "If I buy it, I think I should be able to
install it...." You do not seem to understand that what **you think** is not
the issue here. The issue is that the manufacturer has a license to which
you must agree if you are going to use the product. The manufacturer has the
right to set the conditions of that licesne, since they created the product.
If you do not agree with those conditions, do not use the product. Perhaps
the store from which you bought it will hassle you, but the manufacturer
will accept return of your product in most cases if you explain that you
read the EULA and disagree with it. In your case, you seem to understand the
EULA already, so your argument is moot anyway. You know what the EULA says;
you just disagree with it, but want to use the software YOUR way, because
YOU think you are justified.
Millions, if not billions, of people agree with me.
Terrorists blew up a train in Spain. Millions of people agreed with that
action and thought it was justified. Obviously, it was not. I use extreme
examples because you are incapable of comprehending the simpler ones
presented earlier.
One cannot get one's money back after opening the package. One cannot read
the EULA until after one opens the package and starts the installation.
Ergo, such a scammy EULA is null and void. All stores say you are buying
software and NONE tell you you are buying a license. Who's the thief in
this picture?
You can open the box, read the EULA, then not agree to it, and return the
product. Perhaps the store from which you bought it will hassle you, but the
manufacturer will accept return of your product in most cases if you explain
that you read the EULA and disagree with it.
For all MS knows, I could be putting Linux on my other computers. Saying
that I would pay if forced to is speculation.
And that comment was completely irrelevant to your argument. If you put
Linux on your other computers, who cares? We are not discussing Linux, nor
are we discussing whether or not Microsoft is **aware** of every single
illegal or license-violating installation of their product. Whether or no
they know about your improper use of the license does not have a bearing on
whether or not the use is wrong, whether morally or legally.
I made no mention of forcing anyone to pay. You claim that Spain calls it
casual copying if there is no financial gain. I have already proven that
every time you install it without a purchased license for each installation,
you have gained financially, regardless of whether or not there is a law
regulating it.
Let's do the math again, first assuming an honest person of integrity is
using the software in accordance with the license. He has four computers. XP
costs $200 for each copy. He buys four copies for a total expenditure of
$800. Now for the unscrupulous person. You have four computers. You buy one
copy, then install it four times. Total cost of $200. Now $800 - $200 =
$600, which is YOUR FINANCIAL GAIN from not using the license properly.
Spain distinguishes between casual copying and copying to resell the
copies. You apparently think they're the same thing.
No, I never said they were the same thing. What I have been trying to pound
into your thick head is that you are indeed achieving a financial gain by
using the single license on multiple systems. You claim that Spain calls it
casual copying if there is no financial gain. I have already proven that
every time you install it without a purchased license for each installation,
you have gained financially, regardless of whether or not there is a law
regulating it.
Let's do the math AGAIN, first assuming an honest person of integrity is
using the software in accordance with the license. He has four computers. XP
costs $200 for each copy. He buys four copies for a total expenditure of
$800. Now for the unscrupulous person. You have four computers. You buy one
copy, then install it four times. Total cost of $200. Now $800 - $200 =
$600, which is YOUR FINANCIAL GAIN from not using the license properly. What
part of your not having spent the extra &600 do you fail to see as financial
gain. In this scenario, YOU are $600 ahead of the honest person, and that my
boy, IS FINANCIAL GAIN. Period.
Businesses don't enjoy the same fair use provisions that private parties
do because, unlike private parties, they can write off the expense.
Um, the EULA is not available to agree to until it's too late to get your
money back. Ye Olde Bait and Switch thievery.
Contact the manufacturer directly to get your money back. I have done it
several times. Also, since you and the rest of the pirates are well aware of
the license restrictions anyway, your point is moot.
Um, a service cannot be copied and resold on the Internet. Do you even
wonder why it's so hard to think of an appropriate analogy?
And why does something have to copied and sold on the Internet to be able to
be stolen? The analogy of the programmer noted above is perfect, because
that is what is happening with Microsoft. OK, let's use your little mental
restriction, since you seem incapapble of realizing that things can be
stolen not just via electronic distribution.
Here we go. You are a programmer. You write a program that took you
thousands of hours to develop. Lots of people want to use your program. You
sell someone a license to use it on one computer, because you need to make
money back to compensate you for those thousands of hours of work. He is a
person just like you who thinks you have no right to collect funds for each
license sold. He reasons, "I bought the software, I can do whatever I want
with it. If I buy the license, it belongs to me. No theft." He then takes
the license key and posts it on the Internet, hands it to the guy next door,
and mails it to a friend in China, covering three means of distribution
(electronic, physical, and mail). Soon, millions of people just like you are
using YOUR program on their systems, yet you have only been paid for one
copy. Do you honestly think you would have no problem with that scenario?
An analogy does not have to be an exact match to a situation in order to be
applicable. The point of the analogy is that the provider of a service, the
writer of a program, the painter of an art work, the manufacturer of a
product, all have the right to be compensated for each use of their service,
each installation of their program, each painting sold, or each product
used.
Again, turn your little table around and put yourself in the place of the
person not receiving compensation for each piece of his work. YOU want ot be
compensated fo rall of your work, no matter what form it takes, so why do
you still feel Microsoft has no right to be compensated?
If I buy the license, it belongs to me. No theft. The disagreement you and
I have is how I can use the license that I can only agree to after it's
too late to get my money back.
And I can't get my money back if I install the license to the point where
I can read the EULA. Ye Olde Catch 22 thievery.
No, it is only stealing according to an EULA that I can't disagree to
until it's too late for me to get my money back. Such a scammy EULA is
null and void as far as I am concerned and I feel I have a right to use a
license as I see fit in the privacy of my home under the fair use
provisions.
See what I said about the EULA above.
#1, you can return the product to Microsoft directly.
#2, you still have the legal right to install it on ONE computer, so you
have no need to return it. The whole point of this discussion is use of one
license on multiple systems, and you already know that is against the EULA.
You're assuming their EULA is fair, legal and the best thing since TIVO.
Unfortunately for your argument, one cannot disagree to the EULA until
it's too late to get your money back.
Your example is absurd at best when you consider that Microsoft made
billions with 95/98/Me/Office 97-2000 and W2K, all widely copied for
personal use and pirated.
Again, if you steal one apple or the whole damn orchard, you are still a
thief. Thievery is not dependent upon the amount stolen, not is it dependent
upon the number of times something is stolen, but it is dependent upon
whether or not ANYTHING was taken without permission or compensation, or was
used in violation of the license in this case. How much money Microsoft has
made is not the issue. Proper moral and legal use of the license conditions
IS the issue. You seem to justify taking things from people who have more
money than you do. Guess what? Every thug who mugs someone uses the same
thought process. "You have way more money than I do, therefore I can take
some of yours."
The point is that the profit motive of the store was rightfully to make
money, but the thieves' profit motive was not to spend any money, but to
still enjoy the benefit of the product. Whether that store made $2 on each
TV or $20,000 on each sale, is NOT THE POINT. The point is that EACH
instance of someone getting one of the store's TVs is rightfully due a
compensation.
I never said that if one walks into a store and takes something that it
isn't theft.
But apparently a person virtually "walking into" an Internet web site and
doing the exact same thing is not theft in your mind. Ask your self WHY is
there a difference? If I get into a bank's accounting system via the
Internet and transfer $600 to my account, I didn't steal it, right, because
I never actually walked into a bank. Ludicrous! THEFT IS THEFT, no matter
the means used to get the product, service, or whatever, without properly
compensating the creator or provider of the product or service.
You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am done
with you.
Gregg
)