Why Only On One PC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Bill is no longer the CEO.

JAX

Alias said:
Like anyone else selling a product, they get to

Somehow, I don't think that every product carries rules of usage with them.
For example, a banana. Chiquita Banana could care less if two people eat it,
no one eats it or you use it as a dildo and then smoke the peels. After all
you *did* pay for the product and it is therefore *yours*. Unfortunately,
the rules of usage for an MS OS doesn't stop piracy and only gets bonafide
customers upset with Microsoft for the inconvenience and probably don't have
much sympathy with MS' excuse that they're "losing money to piracy" when
their CEO is the richest man in the world.

Alias
Click to expand...
 
OK if you want your ludicrous example.
If Chiquita put a restriction on the use of their banana, you would
have a choice to agree or buy from another source.

Same with Microsoft or most any product.
The manufacturer sets the terms if any.
If you do not like the terms set, buy another brand.
 
Well since it has already been established you are incapable of
following an agreement, in this case the EULA, your reasoning is very
clear.
 
In this case you do not purchase Windows.
You purchase the license to use Windows according to the EULA.
You agree to the terms or return the product.
 
Bruce Chambers said:
Greetings --

This bonafide user isn't the least bit upset that Microsoft has
finally started to take steps (baby steps, with WPA, granted) to put a
stop to software piracy. I also know better than trying to compare
the license usage of copyrighted intellectual property with a banana.

Bruce Chambers
Click to expand...

Just curious, who invented this "license usage"? Microsoft, per chance? WPA
does not stop piracy. The *only* thing it does is inconvenience bonafide
customers.

Alias
 
Jupiter Jones said:
OK if you want your ludicrous example.
If Chiquita put a restriction on the use of their banana, you would
have a choice to agree or buy from another source.
Click to expand...

They *can't* put a restriction on bananas. They were really worried about
that when they thought that banana peels, when smoked, would get you high,
thanks to Donovan's Mellow Yellow.
Same with Microsoft or most any product.
Click to expand...

Again, I ask you, is MS selling a "product"? I don't think so.
The manufacturer sets the terms if any.
If you do not like the terms set, buy another brand.
Click to expand...

The "other brands" do not have a monopoly on computer software. In effect,
the manufacturer is forcing us to buy his rental of a product.

Alias
 
He now changes the towels in the men's room and shines shoes.(chiding) He
stepped down from CEO about two or three years ago. That was back when MS
starting to get into big trouble. I don't remember the details, but if you
care to do a search, I'm sure you can find the information.

JAX
 
JAX said:
He now changes the towels in the men's room and shines shoes.(chiding)
Click to expand...

Are the towels a product or does he just have a license to use them?
He
stepped down from CEO about two or three years ago. That was back when MS
starting to get into big trouble. I don't remember the details, but if you
care to do a search, I'm sure you can find the information.

JAX
Click to expand...

I'm not *that* interested.

Alias
 
Yes! They make it inconvenient to put it on your wife's computer when you
have already put it on your computer.

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
 
Jupiter said:
Well since it has already been established you are incapable of
following an agreement, in this case the EULA, your reasoning is very
clear.
Click to expand...
<sarcasm>Yes, I am completely incapable of following an agreement, and
it shows because all Windows XP machines I have in my house (I have 4 of
them) are OEM installations which came with the machines they are
installed on currently.</sarcasm>

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams
 
Crusty "Old B@stard" said:
Yes! They make it inconvenient to put it on your wife's computer when you
have already put it on your computer.

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
Click to expand...

Upgrading your computer is an inconvenience too but only for bonafide users.
People who use cracked versions are not inconvenienced by the fact that MS
dictates that XP can only be installed on one computer.

Terrific PR, this one.

Alias
 
Greetings --

Let's put the responsibility where it lies, shall we? We
bonafide, honest customers are not inconvenienced by WPA. We're
inconvenienced by the acts of the software pirates who have made WPA
and other copy protection schemes necessary. Just as we
inconvenienced by having to lock our homes and cars to keep common
thieves out -- it's not the manufacturer of the locks and automobiles
who are the root cause of the inconvenience, it's the dishonesty of
others. Just as we resent having to pay taxes to keep convicted
criminals behind bars.


Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
 
Greetings --

You still haven't demonstrated how WPA causes any inconvenience to
bonafide users. WPA is almost entirely automatic and invisible to the
typical user. How is this inconvenient? WPA is, in fact, a lot more
"convenient" than a lot of other copy protection methods used by other
software manufacturers.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
 
Back
Top