Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[Nina DiBoy]

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.

Not in a post shrink-wrapped license.

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.

MS made their EULA unconscionable when they violated US antitrust laws.
The consumer should not have to keep getting screwed by it just
because the DOJ didn't handle the situation well.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

But MS is trying to tell you how to use it in your own home. Where and
how many times you install it on your own home personal computers for
non-commercial purposes is part of *how* consumers use the software.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Sounds good to me.

Gregg

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.

 

[Gregg Hill]

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.

Is your home lined with aluminum foil? Black helicopters circling the house,
are they?

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

Of course the pirates did not write the code. MS wrote it to prevent further
misuse of their products. In that respect, we do indeed have the pirates to
thank. Did MS do it just for kicks? No. Had people NOT pirated their
software previously, there would be no reason to add the restrictions. They
pirted, MS is trying to prevent that from happening any more. MS is being
reactive, not proactive.

Do you have locks on your doors or on your cars? Whom do you have to thank
for that? Honest people? Nope, thieves, rapists, murderers, and everyone
else whom one may fear is why one puts locks on the door.

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.

True. MS would not be as big, because Bill has done a few things wrong on
his side. But, again, that does not justify taking profits from his company
by not purchasing one license per installation.

 

[Gregg Hill]

The liar comment was in response to you saying you do not agree with the
EULA, but you agree to in order to use the software. You either agree or you
don't. The liar reference was to the act of agreeing to something with which
you do not agree. I admit the wording was harsh, and I apologize.

Gregg Hill

 

[Gregg Hill]

The courts can never do the sentencing because the TV thief never got
caught. Most pirates never get caught, but they still pirated the software.

I never did accuse everyone of being a thief, only those who use one license
to install on many computers, regardless of whether or not they get got, and
whether or not anyone sees them click to agree to the EULA.

Gregg Hill

 

[Gregg Hill]

Gregg Hill wrote:


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

Not at all. You completely ignore the fact that consumers have the CHOICE
NOT TO USE Microsoft software at all. NO ONE is holding a gun to anyone's
head and saying, "Use this software!" NO ONE is bending anyone over a table.
If you feel you are over at table, then you are there because you chose to
use Microsoft's product. Simple fix...NEVER use their products again,
whether legally or not.

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

Well, gee, maybe it was where you stated, "No one is going to look out for
me except me. Having the care to stand up for my fair use rights is not
unethical." led me to believe you did it. It was an honest mistake. Did you
notice the "or anyone else" part of the comment?

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.

The OEMs were not "forced" to sell only Windows. They **could have chosen**
to sell only Linux and no Windows at all. The OEMs CHOSE to follow
Microsoft's requirement, which I think was stupid in some respects, but at
the same time a brilliant marketing decision on their part because of the
massive desire for Windows. But they chose nonetheless. They were not
forced.



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.

Other operating systems ARE out there. Use one if you have so much against
MS. If they do not have full driver support, blame the writers of Linux, not
Windows.

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.

Consumers are only being bent over a table that they put the table in place
and then dropped there own pants voluntarily when they CHOSE to buy an MS
product. They could have kept their pants up and used Linux. If one CHOOSES
to use an MS product, who does that one have to blame? Only oneself.

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.

I have the right to use other software. They have done nothing to strip my
civil rights. They coul dhave built Windows only to run inside there own
company, but htey chose to offer it to the world to anyone willing to pay
for it. When you can CHOOSE to use it or not to use it, no one is taking any
"rights" from you.

So then you admit that the EULA is unconscionable.

Where did I admit that? I said that, "You yourself claimed that the EULA is
unconscionable." I said that, "Paying for one product license and using it
multiple times is a matter of ethics, or more correctly, a lack thereof."
That means that I think it unethical to use the product on more computers
than you have licenses. I never said anything about the EULA being
unconscionable to me.


Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

Nina,

Is Microsoft forcing consumers to buy or use their software? NO! They are
giving consumers the OPTION to use their software if they are willing to pay
for it. If the consumer is not willing to pay, then the consumer should use
something else.

There is absolutely no force involved. If you don't like the way the company
does business, don't buy their products. That is not rocket science.

Gregg Hill

 

[Gregg Hill]

There is a difference between "how many times" and "for what purpose (or
how)" the software is used. It is a matter of semantics.

Microsoft says once you pay for each installation, you can do whatever you
want with it. Play games, track your budget, design planes, hey it's none of
our business! That is not limiting "how" you use it.

Gregg Hill

 

[Gregg Hill]

Give me a hint. Too much to wade through at this hour. My eyes are burning.

Anyway, if they are a monopoly or guilty of antitrust, one still CHOOSES
whether or not to use their products. If one CHOOSES to do so, that one
should quit complaining.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

Well, if you were capable of simple math, you would realize that there is
another possibility. Gosh, Gregg is one person being hit by many, he can't
type to save his life, and he can only answer one post at a time.

Apparently, that never occurred to you.

By the way, the Scotch was excellent! Just kidding...I don't touch alcohol,
for reasons you really don't want to know, so don't make any assumptions.

Gregg Hill

 

[Alias]

Is your home lined with aluminum foil? Black helicopters circling the house,
are they?

Being insulting again, eh? MS allowed pre XP to be pirated to saturate
the market and build a monopoly. Now they want to cash in. Best thing
that ever happened to Linux.

Of course the pirates did not write the code. MS wrote it to prevent further
misuse of their products. In that respect, we do indeed have the pirates to
thank. Did MS do it just for kicks? No. Had people NOT pirated their
software previously, there would be no reason to add the restrictions. They
pirted, MS is trying to prevent that from happening any more. MS is being
reactive, not proactive.

The pirates aren't affected one iota. For every WGA, WPA, etc., the
pirates crack it in one day. The people these so-called anti piracy
codes *do* affect are the paying customers.

Do you have locks on your doors or on your cars? Whom do you have to thank
for that? Honest people? Nope, thieves, rapists, murderers, and everyone
else whom one may fear is why one puts locks on the door.

So, you are saying that the anti piracy codes are locks that "protect"
the paying customer. It's more like they are codes that prevent the
paying customer from using what he paid for.

True. MS would not be as big, because Bill has done a few things wrong on
his side. But, again, that does not justify taking profits from his company
by not purchasing one license per installation.

This crap has prevented Gates and Co. from me buying Vista. The kill
switch did it for me. I will be phasing all three of my computers over
to Ubuntu that *does* allow me to install as many copies of Ubuntu that
my little heart desires and I pay *nothing*.

Alias

 

[Alias]

There is no sleight of hand.

If you don't agree to the EULA, you can't get your money back.

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.

The new cracks don't require leaked keys. They don't require keys at all
and can get all the updates except things like Defender, IE7 and WMP11.

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.

I can afford it but I will not be buying Vista. I am testing out Ubuntu
right now.

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.

Bingo! And if the EU forces MS to change their EULA and draconian anti
piracy (anti customer, actually), I may buy Vista. If not, hasta la
vista Microsoft.

Alias

 

[Alias]

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.

Not in Spain. A judge just rule that a man, who had downloaded over
90,000 songs, was merely exercising his fair use rights in the privacy
of his home. Some artists agree to protecting CDs, some don't. Bob
Dylan's new album, for example, has no protection. I have sent songs to
three people. All three went out and bought the album.

Alias

 

[Alias]

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.

Can't read the EULA until it's too late to get your money back.

Some do,

Name one.

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.

Ethics are a subjective thing, not black and white, as are morals. My
objection is more about how the anti piracy codes make paying customers
jump through hoops they shouldn't have to jump through.

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

No, I am saying I abide by the rules because I can afford it not because
I agree with it.

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.

I'm going for Linux. The kill switch, which will give millions of false
positives, is not something I want to have to deal with in the future.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Nina,

Is Microsoft forcing consumers to buy or use their software? NO! They are
giving consumers the OPTION to use their software if they are willing to pay
for it. If the consumer is not willing to pay, then the consumer should use
something else.

There is absolutely no force involved. If you don't like the way the company
does business, don't buy their products. That is not rocket science.

Gregg Hill

Microsoft has a monopoly. Most people can't figure out Linux or afford
Apple. This is not rocket science; this is common sense.

Alias

 

[Alias]

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.

Well, I'm about to gain a bunch of money by not buying Vista. Will MS
sue me for using Ubuntu instead? The reason I am switching is their
unfair EULA and buggy, draconian kill switch, phone home anti consumer
crap. So, using your "logic", I will be "stealing" the money I don't
spend at MS for Vista.

Alias

 

[Shenan Stanley]

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.

Well, I'm about to gain a bunch of money by not buying Vista. Will
MS sue me for using Ubuntu instead? The reason I am switching is
their unfair EULA and buggy, draconian kill switch, phone home anti
consumer crap. So, using your "logic", I will be "stealing" the
money I don't spend at MS for Vista.

Actually - you cannot apply Gregg's logic in your case.

Gregg used one manufacturer/one product in his example.
I suppose Microsoft and Windows.

You used two manufacturers/products.
I suppose Microsoft/Ubuntu and Windows/Ubuntu (Linux for Humans).

If you purchase nothing from a single manufacturer and use nothing from a
single manufacturer, you did not "steal" anything from them, you simply
denied them their sale. You have that right as a consumer. You do not
*have* to buy and/or use anything you don't wish to.

If you purchase one product from one manufacturer and use that one product
from one manufacturer in the fashion stated as legitimate by said
manufacturer - then you got what you paid for.

If you download one free (open-source) product from one manufacturer and use
that one product from one manufacturer many times over (open-source
generally allows that, by definition) - then you got what you thought you
would.

In other words - what I get out of Gregg's "logic" (example you quoted Gregg
as having said) is:
-----
If you purchase something from a company that is easily 'copied' so that you
could use it in multiple places, but said company infers (or directly
states) as part of using that single item, if you want to use it again
elsewhere - you will have to buy another, but you choose to ignore that
agreement and use it multiple times - you are denying the company the income
from said item you are getting use out of. If the company made no such
inference/statement - then you aren't taking anything from anyone - but
using said product as intended.
-----

Is the Windows OS over-priced?
That's subjective, but in comparison to "free", yes.

Could Microsoft make some better 'packages', such as selling a less
expensive "family license"?
Sure - Apple does it with their single license OS X costing $129 and a
family '5-pack' costing $199.

Has Microsoft done some bad things?
Made bad choices?
Implemented bad policies and enforcement methods?
Yes.

Is the EULA that comes with Microsoft Products possibly unfair?
Could be.

Do consumers have choices other than Microsoft for their OS/other products?
Yes.


What I always find interesting about these threads (other than the fact they
get so long and seem to be religious arguments) is that some people say they
are changing to another OS (have been for who knows how long) and others say
how unfair the EULA is and how strongly they are against it and/or how
unfair it is you do not get to read the EULA before you purchase the
product(s) and/or how hard it is to return (if they even can) after they
have opened/used the product - but those same people state how they have
several computers with several legitimately purchased licenses of Windows.
If they didn't agree with it the first time - why'd they buy another copy
(or several more copies) that they know will have the same agreement?
There's nothing *technical* keeping someone from doing that. Sure -
switching to a new OS - there in-lies some technical know-how and/or
training. However - after years of legitimately using the other product
(sometimes in several locations) - they seem suddenly interested/intentioned
to switch to some other product.

The other interesting things is how it brings out the worst in everyone.
There ends up being little logic and much emotion. People accusing or
misinterpretations that crop up. Most everyone ends up on the defensive
instead of discussing and trying to come to some reasonable compromise they
could present in some logical fashion. It turns into "my belief is right,
your belief is wrong" and with those blinders on - nothing ever gets done.
For either side of whatever the topic of the day might be...

 

[arachnid]

There is a difference between "how many times" and "for what purpose (or
how)" the software is used. It is a matter of semantics.

Microsoft says once you pay for each installation, you can do whatever you
want with it. Play games, track your budget, design planes, hey it's none
of our business! That is not limiting "how" you use it.

The Vista Home license says you can't run Vista Home in a virtual machine,
not even if it's running on the licensed hardware. The Business version
allows you to run a few copies in a VM but does not allow you to access
any Microsoft protected data formats (media and protected Office files) in
a VM. Under both the Vista and XP licenses, you are forbidden to create a
bootable Windows CD and boot it in another machine even just to do a quick
fix.

 

[arachnid]

Well, if you were capable of simple math, you would realize that there is
another possibility. Gosh, Gregg is one person being hit by many, he can't
type to save his life, and he can only answer one post at a time.

And yet Gregg has the time to start other threads while ignoring the
ones where he's getting his tail kicked.