Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[Gregg Hill]

If you had read my posts, you would understand that something being wrong is
not dependent upon there being a law against it. Regardless of the
jurisdiction, taking something without permission and without compensation
is wrong. I am glad that I had parents who taught my some values.

I intend to ignore them now. There apparently is no way to get Alias to
understand the concept.

Gregg Hill

 

[Alias]

Alias,

I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought I
had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll respond.

You are wrong in your assumptions about my upbringing. I was raised by an
atheist father and a Catholic mother who almost never went to church. I have
no faith in God.

However, my Dad was born in 1918, my Mom in 1920, and I in 1959, so my
values come from an older generation, the one that went through the Great
Depression. My grandfather (my Mom's father) was an Italian immigrant who
came here (legally) around 1910 or so with nothing but the shirt on his
back, and not speaking a word of English. He was 16 and worked in the rail
yards and coal mines for years, rather than just claim being poor as an
excuse to steal. He worked a few years and made enough money to go back to
Italy for a month or so, pump out a baby, then come back here to work some
more, then go back and make another baby, then do it again. Finally, in
1929, he had enough money to get the whole family over here. Imagine his
situation now, in 1929, right after the crash, with his family of three
kids, and his parents who were too sick to work much. He and his family
lived through the entire Great Depression. My Mom, who was the poorer of my
two parents, never stole anything from anyone (neither did anyone else in
the family, nor did my Dad), in spite of having to wipe her ass with a Sears
catalog because the family could not afford toilet paper. They lived in a
house with no electricity and had an outhouse. They were better off in
Italy!

Sorry, but being poor does NOT equate to having lower moral values. Having
low moral values is something you CHOOSE, because you CAN change that.

I didn't say that and apologize for mistakenly guessing at your upbringing.

Your attitude sounds like that of someone I worked with a few years back. He
had been in jail for stealing radios out of cars, and he told me that I just
did not understand being poor and not having food to eat. I asked him if he
and his stealing buddies spent every single penny they got from those stolen
radios on food. The answer was NO, some of it went to booze and drugs. I
then asked if he had approached the owner of each vehicle and had asked them
for a few dollars in exchange for washing their vehicle or some other form
of honest work. Again, the answer was no. He CHOSE to steal instead, rather
than even ask if there were some way to EARN the money for food.

I like your comment that, "...stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is
not considered a crime." But you did call it stealing, and that is morally
wrong. How many times do I have to explain to you that something does not
have to be illegal to be wrong? It does not matter the amount taken without
permission to be wrong. Raping a woman in certain countries is not
punishable by law, but do you consider it OK to do so if it happens within
the borders of that country?

I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use
in regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is
where we disagree. I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like
prohibition, slavery, marijuana, etc. and you had no comment. If
everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change,
Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.

I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did
not steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal
consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take
something that belongs to someone else.

See the difference?

Alias

 

[Leythos]

You think they are both stealing and this is
where we disagree. I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like
prohibition, slavery, marijuana, etc. and you had no comment. If
everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change,
Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.

Most people that are ethical know that they can protest and argue
without breaking the rules/laws - there is nothing to stop you from
protesting without breaking the rules/laws.

People that break the rules/laws and then claim "Fair Use" or I'm doing
it to prove a point about the rule/law being wrong, are just taking the
slackers way out.

The rules will not change, they will get worse, as proven by what MS is
doing now, and it's because of people like you, based on your actions,
that cause things to get worse.

 

[Alias]

Most people that are ethical know that they can protest and argue
without breaking the rules/laws - there is nothing to stop you from
protesting without breaking the rules/laws.

With your "logic", blacks would still be slaves, marijuana use would
still be a felony and the USA would still be a colony of England. I do
not break the rules. Every computer I have has legal licenses. That
said, if Spain forces MS to stop their "anti piracy" rules and allow
fair use, I will change my M.O., although I have no use or interest in
Vista so I may not have a chance to take advantage of that. When a
computer buddy of mine comes back from the States, we will be looking
into Linux because, my friend, I have principles and one of those
principles is not supporting a monopoly that pretends to tell me what I
can or can't do in the privacy of my home with something I bought.

People that break the rules/laws and then claim "Fair Use" or I'm doing
it to prove a point about the rule/law being wrong, are just taking the
slackers way out.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. If
you lived in the 50s and saw some blacks eating in a white restaurant,
you would have probably called Bull Conner because they were "breaking
the law".

The rules will not change, they will get worse, as proven by what MS is
doing now, and it's because of people like you, based on your actions,
that cause things to get worse.

People like me do protest. A$$holes like you think they're morally
superior to everyone else. I have yet to see you protest one thing MS
has done. All I see you doing is telling everyone how moral and correct
you are and how immoral and incorrect the protesters are.

Vista will be a flop and their draconian "anti piracy" features will be
the best thing that has ever happened to Linux and XP. IE7 has made Fire
Fox's day.

Alias

 

[arachnid]

Apparently you missed the point about not taking something from someone
without permission or compensation. As I said before, it does not have to
be illegal to be wrong.

And you missed my clearly stated point that by entering the free market,
the seller AGREED to play by the legal rules governing the local
marketplace. How can ignoring the EULA and making copies for your friends
be immoral if the seller, by entering the market, has agreed that the EULA
isn't binding and that buyers can make copies for their friends?

And, yes, I have returned software products before.

Sure you have. Maybe one or two over the years, but it's not the rule for
most software purchases in the US.

 

[arachnid]

Most people that are ethical know that they can protest and argue without
breaking the rules/laws - there is nothing to stop you from protesting
without breaking the rules/laws.

That's not always the case, but it is here. The way to protest ripoff
policies and oppressive software licenses is to actively support open
source software. That both provides an alternative now, and encourages
the software industry to change its greedy ways as it loses market
share to OSS. Pirating commercial software only provides an excuse for
ever more draconian laws and technologies.

The same is true in music. There are many great indie groups out there who
charge good prices and don't DRM their music AND let you preview the
entire album for free. A good site for those who haven't tried the
Indie groups yet is http://www.magnatunes.com, where you can try,
download, and are even encouraged to help distribute, 128-bps MP3's of
complete albums. If you like the music, the cost of a CD-quality bitrate
is whatever you feel it's worth, down to a minimum of $5 per album.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Again you have missed the point. Whether or not there is law, morality and
ethics still exist. If you cannot comprehend that fact, then stop reading
now.

The EULA, which stands for END USER License Agreement, is an agreement
between the END USER and Microsoft. The END USER technically agrees to the
END USER License Agreement before he/she can use the software.

Now if that END USER copies the software and gives it to friends or installs
it multiple times, the END USER has violated the agreement. Here is where
ethics and morality step up to the plate. An ethical and moral END USER does
not have to jump up and down and claim that his country's law allows him to
go against the END USER License Agreement. An ethical and moral END USER
abides by the END USER License Agreement, regardless of whether or not that
agreement is legally binding in one's country of residence, simply because
the manufacturer of the product has the right to determine how many times it
is to be installed per license purchased. An ethical and moral end user
knows that there is a choice: abide by it, or do not use it.

Show me one EULA that claims that, "We, the seller, by entering the market,
have agreed that the EULA isn't binding and that buyers can make copies for
their friends" and I will agree with you. Why? Because at that point the
manufacturer would be giving permission to make the copies. SO far, no EULA
I have seen does that.

Not to mention that you seem to have missed the overall point of this entire
thread, i.e., that this thread is about the leaked volume license keys and
the pirates that use them. In those cases, not one of the people using a key
has paid for it, so EVERY use of it is unethical and immoral, if not
illegal, regardless of the country of residence.

As far as returns, the store will always hassle you, but the manufacturer
will take it back, at least in my experience.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

SNIP

I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use in
regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is where we
disagree.

Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair
use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An
ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money
than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so.
As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation)
one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every
thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what
they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break
the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally
binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END
USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.

I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery,
marijuana, etc. and you had no comment.

Yes, I did, it was near the bottom of the last post. By the way, your
analogy to Prohibition is incorrect. The alcohol manufacturers were not the
ones restricting access to their own product. The alcohol manufacturers
never said we could buy a bottle of booze but had to consume it ourselves
without sharing it. The government was trying to tell us we could not
consume alcohol. The same thing goes for marijuana. It is not the drug
smugglers and dealers who are asking you not to share their product.

In the case of this thread, the manufacturer has an agreement between itself
and its end users only to use the software on one computer per purchased
license. That is not even remotely close to your off-base arguments.

You compare the CHOICE of whether or not to use software and people being
FORCED into slavery? And you riduculed ME for bad analogies? Give me a
break!

If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change,
Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.

Trust me, Microsoft knows that people disagree with them, and the massive
pirating by those people who disagree with them has led directly to the
anti-piracy measures in their software today. You (pirates) have brought
this upon yourselves by your dishonesty, lack of morals, and lack of ethics.

I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did not
steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal
consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take something
that belongs to someone else.

Good for you. I commend you for not stealing when you were poor. However,
you advocate doing it now, but you call it "fair use." Fair to whom? Only to
software pirates. Something that is "fair" benefits both parties.

See the difference?

No, I don't see the difference, because there is none. You just stated that
again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that
belongs to someone else." In the case of Microsoft's XP software, there is
an END USER License Agreement, a document that binds the manufacturer and
the END USER, YOU, to an agreement before you use their software. This
agreement is between YOU and the manufacturer, regardless of the country in
which you live, or the laws of that country. That agreement gives you
permission to install the software on ONE computer. If you violate the terms
of that agreement, and you install the software on multiple computers, YOU
have just taken "something that belongs to someone else," which is the
license for a single use of the product. YOU have been saying that it is OK
to do that throughout this entire thread, and you call it "fair use." Yes,
you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to you...a license to
use the software.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

"The way to protest ripoff policies and oppressive software licenses is to
actively support open source software."

Now there is a statement that makes sense (albeit a tad paranoid in its
wording) and goes along with my previous statement that if you don't like
the EULA, don't use the product.

Every XP pirate out there could simply use a free form of Linux and be done
with Microsoft, but instead, they choose to steal.

Gregg

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair
use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An
ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money
than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so.
As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation)
one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every
thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what
they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break
the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally
binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END
USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.

Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime. The logical course of action is for MS to
take the individual to court in order to enforce their license. But MS
doesn't. They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

 

[Alias]

Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as
taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief
who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair
use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An
ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money
than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so.
As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation)
one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every
thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what
they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break
the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally
binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END
USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.




Yes, I did, it was near the bottom of the last post. By the way, your
analogy to Prohibition is incorrect. The alcohol manufacturers were not the
ones restricting access to their own product. The alcohol manufacturers
never said we could buy a bottle of booze but had to consume it ourselves
without sharing it. The government was trying to tell us we could not
consume alcohol. The same thing goes for marijuana. It is not the drug
smugglers and dealers who are asking you not to share their product.

In the case of this thread, the manufacturer has an agreement between itself
and its end users only to use the software on one computer per purchased
license. That is not even remotely close to your off-base arguments.

You compare the CHOICE of whether or not to use software and people being
FORCED into slavery? And you riduculed ME for bad analogies? Give me a
break!





Trust me, Microsoft knows that people disagree with them, and the massive
pirating by those people who disagree with them has led directly to the
anti-piracy measures in their software today. You (pirates) have brought
this upon yourselves by your dishonesty, lack of morals, and lack of ethics.





Good for you. I commend you for not stealing when you were poor. However,
you advocate doing it now, but you call it "fair use." Fair to whom? Only to
software pirates. Something that is "fair" benefits both parties.






No, I don't see the difference,

What a surprise.

because there is none. You just stated that

again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that
belongs to someone else."

Um, how can I take something I already have?

In the case of Microsoft's XP software, there is
an END USER License Agreement, a document that binds the manufacturer and
the END USER, YOU, to an agreement before you use their software. This
agreement is between YOU and the manufacturer, regardless of the country in
which you live, or the laws of that country. That agreement gives you
permission to install the software on ONE computer. If you violate the terms
of that agreement, and you install the software on multiple computers, YOU
have just taken "something that belongs to someone else,"

No, can't take something I already have and contract disputes are not
crimes.

which is the
license for a single use of the product. YOU have been saying that it is OK
to do that throughout this entire thread, and you call it "fair use." Yes,
you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to you...a license to
use the software.

Gregg

I already have the license. Contract disputes from my not agreeing but
installing anyway, is not, I'm afraid, stealing.

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Breaking the MS's EULA is not a crime, because the EULA is not a law.
It's a license. This means that if someone does "agree" to the license
and then does not follow it, it is a contract dispute between that party
and MS. It is not a crime.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.

The logical course of action is for MS to
take the individual to court in order to enforce their license. But MS
doesn't.

This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft to
actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead, they
only go after the "big fish."

They instead put more and more buggy DRM and consumer limiting
technologies into their products which treats the average consumer of
their products like a criminal.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or actively
participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that makes such
copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people weren't
dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel the need
to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual property.
Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to protect
their own interests.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Gregg Hill]

Very well stated, Bruce.

Gregg Hill

All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.




This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft to
actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead, they
only go after the "big fish."



Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or actively
participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that makes such
copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people weren't
dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel the need
to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual property.
Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to protect their
own interests.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand
Russell

 

[Nina DiBoy]

All of which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't
matter whether or not a EULA violation is a criminal offense; the
individual so violating the EULA is still demonstrating an utter lack of
integrity.

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are
also demonstrating a lack of integrity.

This is true, but it'd be a public relations nightmare for Microsoft
to actively go after individual users for such infractions. instead,
they only go after the "big fish."

Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the
fact that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it
should not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.

Because the "average consumer" either tolerates, condones, or
actively participates in the unethical behavior of his/her peers that
makes such copy protection measures necessary. If so very many people
weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers wouldn't feel
the need to take such draconian measures to protect their intellectual
property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses trying to
protect their own interests.

So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

 

[Gregg Hill]

What a surprise.

because there is none. You just stated that

Um, how can I take something I already have?

Because what you "have" is ONE license for ONE computer. If you install it
on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you.
You do NOT "have" multiple licenses.

No, can't take something I already have and contract disputes are not
crimes.

Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was
made about it being a single license.

If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a
license that does not belong to you. It does not have to be a crime to be
stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone
else." The additional installations you do on your other computers are
taking a license from Microsoft, because the ONE license you bought and now
"have" only covers ONE installation. Any installations beyond that ONE are
taking from Microsoft. You do not "have" multiple licenses. You admited that
it would be a contract dispute. Why would it be? Duh, because YOU are
violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more
than one computer. So, again, you are taking something that does not belong
to you. You are stealing. And again, so you can comprehend the concept, it
does not have to be illegal, a crime, or whatever term you choose to give it
in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and stealing, regardless of where
you live. If Microsoft is not being paid each time that XP gets installed on
a separate computer, then it is not fair to them, and by definition is NOT
"fair use." Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.
Something that is "fair" has to benefit BOTH parties involved in order to
meet the definition of fairness, which software piracy (copying) does not
do.

Once again, yes, you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to
you, by advocating that it is OK to install licenses which you do not
"have." What you "have" is a single license to use the software on ONE
computer. ANY use beyond that is taking "something that belongs to someone
else."

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

Nina,

Whether or not you agree with the EULA is not issue. If you do not agree to
it, go use Linux, but do NOT use the software with which you disagree to the
EULA.

If you use it against the EULA, you are stealing, no matter if **you** think
the EULA is flawed. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. Use an
alternative with which you do agree.

More below.

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA. They are also
demonstrating a lack of integrity.

Just because MS wants to be paid for each installation of their XP product,
you say that is unconscionable. How is that a lack of integrity? Being paid
for work done is a basic human decency and is expected by everyone who works
for a living.

Well, then why make it the consumers' problem instead of taking the
logical course of action? PR nightmare aside, it doesn't change the fact
that MS is NOT taking the logical course of action here. And it should
not be the consumers' problem that it would be a PR nightmare.

They are not making it the consumers' problem, at least not if that consumer
has the ethics to follow the license that was purchased.

So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

I disagree with Bruce stating that the average consumer tolerates, condones,
etc, the unethical behavior of others. However, his comment that "If so very
many people weren't dishonest in such matters, software manufacturers
wouldn't feel the need to take such draconian measures to protect their
intellectual property. Blame the liars and thieves, not the businesses
trying to protect their own interests." is right on the money.

When terrorists try to blow up planes, we all pay for the inconvenience at
our airports. Who do we blame for that? The government for trying to protect
us, or the bastards who started it all? Microsoft is trying to protect
itself from pirates, and we all have to deal with it. Thank every unethical
person you know for that inconvenience, but stop blaming Microsoft.


Gregg

 

[Leythos]

With your "logic", blacks would still be slaves, marijuana use would
still be a felony and the USA would still be a colony of England.

Wrong, you just took what I said to the extreme without trying to
understand what I said.

As a thief, and you say you are, I expected nothing less from you.

 

[Leythos]

Every XP pirate out there could simply use a free form of Linux and be done
with Microsoft, but instead, they choose to steal.

I agree with the above and see it the same way.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Because what you "have" is ONE license for ONE computer. If you install it
on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you.
You do NOT "have" multiple licenses.

Actually I have a physical CD which is not a license.

Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was
made about it being a single license.

If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a
license that does not belong to you.

Nope, one would not be taking anything from MS. If one was making
copies and selling them with the key without being a reseller, that
would be stealing.

Name one court case where in any person using software for
non-commercial purposes in the privacy of their own home not strictly in
line with the license has been taken to court and lost.

It does not have to be a crime to be
stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone
else." The additional installations you do on your other computers are
taking a license from Microsoft, because the ONE license you bought and now
"have" only covers ONE installation. Any installations beyond that ONE are
taking from Microsoft.

Taking what from MS?

You do not "have" multiple licenses. You admited that
it would be a contract dispute. Why would it be? Duh, because YOU are
violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more
than one computer.

It's not technically a contract dispute until MS takes one to courrt
over it.

So, again, you are taking something that does not belong
to you. You are stealing. And again, so you can comprehend the concept, it
does not have to be illegal, a crime, or whatever term you choose to give it
in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and stealing, regardless of where
you live. If Microsoft is not being paid each time that XP gets installed on
a separate computer, then it is not fair to them, and by definition is NOT
"fair use." Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.
Something that is "fair" has to benefit BOTH parties involved in order to
meet the definition of fairness, which software piracy (copying) does not
do.

Once again, yes, you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to
you, by advocating that it is OK to install licenses which you do not
"have." What you "have" is a single license to use the software on ONE
computer. ANY use beyond that is taking "something that belongs to someone
else."

Gregg

<Snip>

No, I advocate that the EULA from MS for windows is unconscionable. No
shady company like MS has the right to infringe on my fair use rights or
to tell me how to use something I own in the privacy of my own home.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

The same could be said of MS and their unconscionable EULA.

Please name one American court that has found Microsoft's Eula
"unconsionable."

They are
also demonstrating a lack of integrity.

So, "two wrongs make a right?" That's got to be about the worst excuse
for dishonesty in the world.


Snipped...

So you are saying that the average consumer (which makes up the vast
majority of MS's customers in the non-commercial sector) is guilty of
aiding and being an accessory? Nice. Bruce has the same attitude as MS
does, that everyone's a criminal.

Did I use the word "criminal?" To be a criminal, one must actually
break a law, which we've already determined is irrelevant to the
discussion. However, all one need do is look around to see how many
people are "ethically-challenged." Most seem to think that as long as
they don't get caught (or punished when caught) that they'd done nothing
wrong.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell