Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[Gregg Hill]

That's the EULA, not the law, saying that.

No, I have used one license more than once that I paid for. There is no
"new" license.

The financial effect on the manufacturer is the same. If you pay for one and
use four, it has the same financial impact on their bank account and yours.
They are out the price for three units, and you have gained the price of
three units by not having that amount taken from your account. You have
gained financially, negating your "fair use" claim.

It has to exist doesn't it?

Does the money in your bank account "exist" because a little magnetized
piece of material has created a positive charge on a piece of storage media
in the bank's computer somewhere? Your money in your bank account does not
"exist" any more than that license, but I'll bet you don't want the bank
saying you have no money!

Not the law but the EULA.


How can you take something that doesn't exist?

See the bank account example above.

Which is not illegal or a crime where I live or don't you respect local
customs?

Again, it does not have to be governed by law to be wrong.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?


That's your subjective opinion, not one shared by the Spanish judges. Are
your opinions above the law?

Judges in Afghanistan during Taliban rule did not think raping women and
beating them to death was wrong. So, in your logic, that makes that behavior
right. Bad argument on your part.

Law, or lack thereof, does not mean it is not right.

Not true.


Um, it's the *legal* interpretation.

See the comment about Afghanistan.

MS got its money for the CD I bought. They should expect any more than
that.

Yes, they got money for the first license you used, but not for any other
that you SHOULD have bought.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Everyone knows that, Gregg. We know all about the slight of hand that MS
uses to milk their customers for all they're worth. You don't get
obscenely rich by being a honest nice guy.

There is no sleight of hand. You (meaning a user of XP) can fully understand
the EULA but may or may not choose to ignore it, regardless of local law. My
problem is with those who choose to buy one and install many, or in the case
of what started this thread, not even buying one, but using leaked volume
license keys.

Whether Bill has 100 billion in the bank or three dollars, it does not
change the fact that each product should be paid for before one uses it. Buy
one, install one, plain and simple. Can't afford it, use Linux.

Like Nina, I too have one XP license per computer in two different
languages. This doesn't mean I like they idea. It only means that, like
you, we don't steal.

So you and Nina do not personally steal, but you have been saying all along
that there is nothing wrong with buying one and installing many.

 

[Gregg Hill]

So you keep saying, but then when someone refutes your arguments you
run away without even trying to defend yourself. These are not the
actions of someone who believes what they say.

That is correct. They are the actions of someone who left the house to go
get lunch.

Gregg

 

[caver1]

I agree with you. But what is a "total wiping out" of one side?

I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.

Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.

Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.

We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

Basically I agree with you. The only thing that I try to point out is
that you must have a level playing field. When you have the rule of law
both sides must abide by it. Not just the side with no power or money.
And the history (precedent) of law dictates to both parties where that
middle ground may lie. You must have these discussions without calling
names or being accusatory.

 

[caver1]

THAT is funny!

Alias

Which is true, but at the same time the corporations are these same
unethical people.

 

[caver1]

If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?

Gregg Hill

Yes but it is the courts that do the sentencing. Also you don't accuse
everyone of being the thief just because they walked into your store.

 

[Leythos]

Everyone knows that, Gregg. We know all about the slight of hand that MS
uses to milk their customers for all they're worth.

There is no "milking" of customers, you are and were aware of the
licensing when you purchased it, and you are not forced to use it.

You don't get
obscenely rich by being a honest nice guy.

Some do, but it has nothing to do with the fact that there IS a license
restriction or that it's still unethical to violate that license
restriction.

Like Nina, I too have one XP license per computer in two different
languages. This doesn't mean I like they idea. It only means that, like
you, we don't steal.

So, you've said that people that install a single licensed product on
more than one machine are stealing.

So, all that matters is that people that violate the licensing agreement
are stealing, people that follow it are not stealing, and that we can
get past anything else.

 

[caver1]

Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.

But at the same time the court has stated that EULA's that you cannot
review before you purchase it cannot overide users rights(not the right
word but I had a brainfart). This is not the a right to distribute it.

 

[caver1]

There is no sleight of hand. You (meaning a user of XP) can fully understand
the EULA but may or may not choose to ignore it, regardless of local law. My
problem is with those who choose to buy one and install many, or in the case
of what started this thread, not even buying one, but using leaked volume
license keys.

Whether Bill has 100 billion in the bank or three dollars, it does not
change the fact that each product should be paid for before one uses it. Buy
one, install one, plain and simple. Can't afford it, use Linux.




So you and Nina do not personally steal, but you have been saying all along
that there is nothing wrong with buying one and installing many.

A better anology here is the history of users rights and music. I buy a
cd. I want to use it through my cd player/stereo. I also put it on my
computer and my mp3 player but I am not giving it to anyone else. The
recording industry doesn't want me to have this capability. That is what
Fair use is(I finally thought of the right term) It is only because of
greed that they don't want you doing this. Yes there are pirates of
music but not me. No I don't share mine over the internet.
Also please don't take this so personally. I do not think ill of you
because of your stance.

 

[caver1]

That is correct. They are the actions of someone who left the house to go
get lunch.

Gregg

I hope it was a good and relaxing lunch.

 

[Leythos]

A better anology here is the history of users rights and music. I buy a
cd. I want to use it through my cd player/stereo. I also put it on my
computer and my mp3 player but I am not giving it to anyone else. The
recording industry doesn't want me to have this capability. That is what
Fair use is(I finally thought of the right term) It is only because of
greed that they don't want you doing this. Yes there are pirates of
music but not me. No I don't share mine over the internet.
Also please don't take this so personally. I do not think ill of you
because of your stance.

Actually, if you read the fair-use legal mumbo-jumbo, you can not copy
the media contents for anything other than a backup, and you may not use
the backup while the source is viable - what it means is you can not
copy the music to your computer to play it, but you may put the CD into
your computer and play it directly from the CD.

The backup must not be used while the source is viable - that's why they
call it a backup in the Fair Use legal wording.

 

[arachnid]

I hope it was a good and relaxing lunch.

"Lunch" must have been a bottle of booze, 'cuz Gregg totally forgot
about all the ongoing threads, especially the ones where he was getting
his tail kicked.

 

[arachnid]

Actually, if you read the fair-use legal mumbo-jumbo, you can not copy the
media contents for anything other than a backup, and you may not use the
backup while the source is viable - what it means is you can not copy the
music to your computer to play it, but you may put the CD into your
computer and play it directly from the CD.

In Europe the right to make extra copies for one's own use is usually
lumped under under "Fair Use". In the USA, Fair Use is about
the rules governing usage of quotes from copyrighted works, and the rights
of libraries to loan out copyrighted works. Making extra copies of
purchased media for personal use is covered under the Audio Home Recording
Act:

: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
:
: The act failed to define "noncommercial use by a consumer" however "In
: short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish
: that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies
: for private noncommercial use." (House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4,
: 1992)
:
: <SNIP>
:

A later update, the NET ("No Electronic Theft") act, was pushed through by
the RIAA:

: The [NET] act also makes it criminal to;
:
: * Make 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value
: of more than $1,000
:
: * In any 180-day period, at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or
: more copyrighted works, with a which have a total retail value of
: more than $2,500

Then along came the DMCA, which took away any right to copy if the media
is copy protected. Otherwise the above limits still apply.

(To read the above webpage is to appreciate the extent to which Big
Business has taken over the US government)

 

[Nina DiBoy]

I agree with you. But what is a "total wiping out" of one side?

I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.

Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.

Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.

MS allowed that to happen, they wanted it to happen so they could build
their virtual monopoly. That was just another one of their "genius"
marketing plans.

We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.

No, we have MS to thank. The pirates did not write the code for the
products with DRM in it. MS did that.

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

If the world was filled with "ethical" people as you put it, then MS
would not be nearly as big now as they are. Mac didn't have people
copying their software on this scale, IBM did not have people doing this
with OSWarp on this scale either.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Nina,

My problem with you started where you said, "What is wrong with installing
*licensed* software on more than one machine?" in your first post.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I took it to mean, in light of
the entire thread, that you meant, "What is wrong with installing ONE
*licensed* software product on more than one machine?" which is what this
thread is all about.

It seems our views differ quite a bit here, IOW we may not even be on
the same page. When I said that, I was responding to a post from
Leythos. I was repeating something he said in an earlier post because
what he said made no sense.

I have not ever directly advocated in this thread for installing one
licensed piece of software on multiple machines, because that was not my
original point.

That being said, I don't think that it is the wrong thing to do in all
circumstances.

If that is not what you meant, then you have my sincere apologies for my
mistaken assumption.

Gregg Hill

Well, I appreciate that, but you also called me a liar, and I did no
such thing. While I not only enjoy, but also learn things with
constructive discussion on topics such as the MS EULA, I never want it
to degenerate into a shouting match or name calling, etc.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

THAT is funny!

Alias

LOL! I thought so too.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?

Gregg Hill

Sure it was. Stealing a TV is against the law. Fair use however, is
NOT against the law.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Gregg Hill wrote:

But that in no way justifies doing back to them. Two wrongs do not make a
right.

So consumers should just let MS keep bending them over the table and
take it, right?

I said "someone" does that. I did not say that YOU do that.

Below in this post, where you apologized, you said you thought I did it.

Why is it "fair" for you or anyone else not to pay for each installation of
a product used, if you do in fact do use one license on more than one
computer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"United States v. Microsoft 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a court
case filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein
was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused
monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser
sales."

Here is the pertinent part:
"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its
handling of operating system sales"

Microsoft took away consumer choice by mishandling the "handling of OS
sales" by forcing OEMs to sell only Windows on their machines. IF this
had not happened, other OSes would be out there and available as an
equal consumer choice because they would do everything that windows
does. They would have full driver support, they would have a ton of
games that run on them etc.

IF MS thinks they can do all of this and still bend consumers over the
table with the overinflated pricing and buggy DRM, they are sorely mistaken.

That is what I call fair use.

I laughed out loud, thank you!

Glad you had a chuckle. You are laughing at the process of a big.
greedy, convicted corporation consistently stripping away the civil
rights of consumers all over the world, yourself included.

Oh, but it absolutely IS a discussion of ethics. You yourself claimed that
the EULA is unconscionable. All the anti-MS folks have said there is nothing
wrong with installing one license on multiple computers. Paying for one
product license and usin git multiple times is a matter of ethics, or more
correctly, a lack thereof.

So then you admit that the EULA is unconscionable.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.

See the reply about the antitrust suit I gave in an earlier post.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.

See the reply about the antitrust suit I gave in an earlier post..