Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[Nina DiBoy]

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.

I do use linux for somethings. And whether I agree with the EULA *IS*
the issue. If more consumers were educated comsumers like Alias and
myself, they wouldn't blindly let MS bend them over the table with it's
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.

A contract dispute does not equal stealing. That is not officially
determined until it is decided in a court of law.

More below.


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.

And I'm sure that that's exactly what MS was thinking everytime they
committed patent infringement, right?
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5062409.html

MS has lost numerous patent infringement cases, and each one makes them
more guilty of IP theft.

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

They are making it the consumers' problem, with WPA, WGA, WGAN and all
of the other buggy DRM use limiting controls they try to put into their
software.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142

WGA shows a %42 error rate in one of MS's own studies. Tell me that's
not making it the consumers' problem. They pay the expensive prices
that MS charges for their OS. Then they %42 can't use it because of the
buggy DRM WGA crap in it?

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

I also disagree with Bruce, yet you respond to his post with, "Very well
stated Bruce"

Yeah right.

 

[arachnid]

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.

I stated it about as clearly as it can be said:

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?

Now what part of that don't you understand?

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.

You're sitting in a room, just you and a computer. You read a bunch of
text (which, BTW, both you and Microsoft know not to be illegally binding
in your country), and then click on the "I Agree" button in order to get
the software to install. With whom have you made that agreement? There's
nobody from Microsoft present, Microsoft doesn't know if you've read the
agreement, they don't know that you clicked "I Agree", they don't even
know that you and your computer exist. All that's in the room is you and a
computer.

Now maybe *you* feel morally obligated to respect promises made to an
inanimate object, but I don't think most other people do.

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,

First you have to show how it would be immoral to ignore the EULA in
a country where it is invalidated by law. So far you've failed to do that.

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.

Show me a country where a business can freely ignore the local laws unless
it agrees in its own EULA to obey them.

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.

I'm only refuting your position that people have a moral obligation to
obey a EULA even when it's invalidated by the laws of their country.

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.

That depends on the country's laws and treaties and their citizens'
religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

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

Your experience doesn't seem to be the same as everyone else's experience.

 

[arachnid]

"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)

Well, you're hardly going to change operating systems because of
good policies and favorable licenses...

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.

Yep. I'm just disagreeing with your statements concerning morality and
EULA's. That doesn't mean I think people *should* pirate Windows. Heck,
I don't even think they should use legit copies.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

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

It has not been tried yet because MS has yet to pursue a person breaking
their license for non-commercial use in the privacy of their own home.

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

Again, you should be telling that to the hypocrasy known as MS because
they have lost many IP theft suits, and yet are also in antitrust
trouble the world over, so not only are they ripping off consumers, but
they are pirating the technology of other companies too.

Snipped...


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.

I don't see anything wrong with protecting my fair use rights and my
civil liberties. I'm sorry you see that as unethical.

 

[ANONYMOUS]

Nina,

Aren't you tired yet arguing about a topic that is always contentious no
matter who you are talking to. This thread will go on and on unless
somebody decides that enough is enough!!

On the one hand you will get MVPs and uncle bill's supporters (who agree
with each other on every count), and on the other hand you get people
who think it is their right to use any software they like without paying
for it. Both parties are right depending on in which country they are
based. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it is time to move on
from this topic.

My two cent worth!!

 

[arachnid]

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

It's not a question of making a "right" or a "wrong" out of anything. It's
simply a matter of the other party having changed the rules by which the
two of you behave: "If they play by ruleset X then I'll play by ruleset X.
If they change to ruleset Y, then I'll change to ruleset Y so we're both
playing by the same rules".

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Nina,

Aren't you tired yet arguing about a topic that is always contentious no
matter who you are talking to. This thread will go on and on unless
somebody decides that enough is enough!!

On the one hand you will get MVPs and uncle bill's supporters (who agree
with each other on every count), and on the other hand you get people
who think it is their right to use any software they like without paying
for it. Both parties are right depending on in which country they are
based. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but it is time to move on
from this topic.

My two cent worth!!

That's fair anonymous. I respect your opinion. I do reject the
assumption that I am one of those people who "think it is their right to
use any software they like without paying for it" though. Let it be on
record that I have paid for every windows OS I have installed on a
computer in my own home. I am simply trying to express my opinion that
the MS EULA for Windows is unconscionable.

And no, I don't really get tired to having productive conversation about
this.

 

[Michael D. Alligood]

As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them."
Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed
"laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company
puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal
and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past
year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to
key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing.
They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. What people
need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right
to use the software in accordance to the EULA.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

 

[Gregg Hill]

"What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase
the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA."

Trust me, the folks on the other side of the fence (the pirates) forgot that
fact a long time ago. NO amount of reasoning has yet to convince them
otherwise.

An ethical person understands it readily and abides by his or word (agreeing
to the EULA). They do not. My Dad used to tell me that a man is only as good
as his word, and now I understand that more than ever.

Gregg Hill

 

[arachnid]

As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them."
Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed
"laws". Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company
puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal
and pirating their software; that is just your opinion. In the past year,
I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to key
people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing. They
hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences.

The Vista EULA suggests otherwise.

What people need to remember is that you do not own anything; you
purchase the right to use the software in accordance to the EULA.

Some courts have ruled that no matter what the EULA says, you are indeed
purchasing the software and not just a license to use it. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine

Not that it matters when Microsoft shows up with about a thousand
lawyers... (

 

[Gregg Hill]

Nina,

Read your EULA, the one to which you must agree before you use the software.
You have purchased the **right to use** ONE installation of the code on the
CD. You have NOT purchased the code itself.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

The Vista EULA suggests otherwise.


Some courts have ruled that no matter what the EULA says, you are indeed
purchasing the software and not just a license to use it. See:

But you, as an individual, agree to the EULA in order to use the software in
accordance with that EULA. Either you are an ethical person and you honor
your agreement, are you are unethical and you do not honor it, and you in
effect steal the license for the additional computers onto which you install
XP.

If you took that software to a country that has no laws, or to the Moon to
use it, agreeing to the EULA would still bind an ethical person.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

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



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.

Using that line of thinking, if I buy one TV from a store, then take 90 more
and give them to my friends without being paid anything for them, I am not
stealing. Interesting.

Your statement is incorrect and should read, "If one were making copies and
**distributing them** with the key without being a reseller **or under any
other circumstances,** that would be stealing." Anyone who uses it without a
vlaid license is in effect stealing it.

In principal, it is no different than walking into a computer store and
buying one XP package, then stuffing 30 more into a bag, walking out the
door, and giving them to anyone who wants one. You paid for one license, but
you took 30 others to distribute. Whether for profit or not, it is
unethical, even if it is not illegal.

Would you do that? Why not? The end result is the same. One was purchased,
the rest were stolen.

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.

I have said over and over again that a law need not exist to make something
wrong. To site a Biblical example (not to thump a Bible, but just to prove a
point), when Cain killed Abel, there were no lasws against murder. Was it OK
to kill his brother, then?

Taking what from MS?






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

If I sign a contract and go against it, but the person wronged decides not
to pursue it, I have still breached my agreement. I would still be
unethical. The person wronged does not have to prove my lack of ethics in
court for it to be an unethical act.

<Snip>

No, I advocate that the EULA from MS for windows is unconscionable.

Then you should not agree to it, then renege on your word. You should avoid
the product and use only other manufacturers' software.

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.

Actually, they have every right. They developed the software. If you feel
they have no right, you should not use the product. Why do your "fair use
rights" overrule those of the people who put in the time to write the
product? Because you are unethical.

Gregg

 

[Nina DiBoy]

As an old wise man once stated, "Thems the rules, play by them."
Regardless of what any of us think, these are Microsoft's prescribed
"laws".

First of all, I do not and will never adopt the EULA as a law or a
prescribed "law".

Is everyone a criminal according to Microsoft? Until the company
puts out a public announcement stating they think everyone is a criminal
and pirating their software; that is just your opinion.

Actions speak louder than words. All this buggy DRM that MS employs in
their software is the action they are taking to show that they treat
their paying customers like pirates. They do this instead of standing
up for their EULA and taking the pirates to court.

In the past
year, I have had the opportunity to visit Microsoft Campus and talk to
key people in various divisions. They are listening. They are changing.
They hear the public concerns and are trying to mend fences. What people
need to remember is that you do not own anything; you purchase the right
to use the software in accordance to the EULA.

Which is an unconscionable license put out by a corporation which has
been sued (and lost) for alot more crap than I personally have been.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor



news:[email protected]:

<snip>

 

[Michael D. Alligood]

Use something different then. Suggestions include but are not limited to
Apple, UNIX, Linux, and whatever else you can stea... (borr... I mean
own.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Nina,

Read your EULA, the one to which you must agree before you use the software.
You have purchased the **right to use** ONE installation of the code on the
CD. You have NOT purchased the code itself.

Gregg

<snip>

I do not in principle agree with the EULA. I never have. I never have
violated the EULA either. That being said, if I ever needed to in order
to preserve my fair use rights, I would. Especially since the EULA is
unconscionable.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Gregg Hill wrote:

Using that line of thinking, if I buy one TV from a store, then take 90 more
and give them to my friends without being paid anything for them, I am not
stealing. Interesting.

Not an applicable comparison. TVs are a physical item. A license is
not a physical item.

Your statement is incorrect and should read, "If one were making copies and
**distributing them** with the key without being a reseller **or under any
other circumstances,** that would be stealing." Anyone who uses it without a
vlaid license is in effect stealing it.

In principal, it is no different than walking into a computer store and
buying one XP package, then stuffing 30 more into a bag, walking out the
door, and giving them to anyone who wants one. You paid for one license, but
you took 30 others to distribute. Whether for profit or not, it is
unethical, even if it is not illegal.

Would you do that? Why not? The end result is the same. One was purchased,
the rest were stolen.

Again, not a realistic comparison. Retail theft does not equate to
preserving one's fair use rights.

I have said over and over again that a law need not exist to make something
wrong. To site a Biblical example (not to thump a Bible, but just to prove a
point), when Cain killed Abel, there were no lasws against murder. Was it OK
to kill his brother, then?

Yet again, not a realistic comparison. Murder does not equate to
preserving one's fair use rights.

If I sign a contract and go against it, but the person wronged decides not
to pursue it, I have still breached my agreement. I would still be
unethical. The person wronged does not have to prove my lack of ethics in
court for it to be an unethical act.

Does this negate the fact that it is unethical to infringe upon one's
fair use rights with a license to begin with?

Then you should not agree to it, then renege on your word. You should avoid
the product and use only other manufacturers' software.

I said I don't agree to it in principle. I have not broken it.

 

[Gregg Hill]

And somehow that makes stealing from them OK. Right.

Gregg

 

[arachnid]

But you, as an individual, agree to the EULA in order to use the software
in accordance with that EULA.

No I don't. I'm only clicking on a button that's necessary to get the
program to install. There is no Microsoft representative in the room, I
am not making a promise to any human entity. That button could say I
agree that the sky is green with purple polka dots, but who would I be
lying to by clicking on it?

If you took that software to a country that has no laws, or to the Moon
to use it, agreeing to the EULA would still bind an ethical person.

You're still having a hard time comprehending that the entire world does
not share your one particular ethical/moralistic framework.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Gregg

<snip>

I do not in principle agree with the EULA. I never have.

But you MUST agree to the EULA to install and use the software. So
apperently, you are lying when you click to agree to it. Gee, you sure sound
ethical to me!






I never have

violated the EULA either. That being said, if I ever needed to in order
to preserve my fair use rights, I would. Especially since the EULA is
unconscionable.

At that point you would become a thief and an unethical person.