Michael said:
In
kurttrail said:
Michael said:
In kurttrail <
[email protected]> respectfully
replied ;-)
Ron Bogart wrote:
In kurttrail <
[email protected]> did some
thinking and came up with these words:
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
message Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
How do you know Alias is a developer, Mike?
His status as a developer or not is irrelevant. The current
discussion newsgroups are developer focussed and that is where
he can ask his questions to learn more about Windows "Longhorn"
as well as on the appropriate web sites.
Sure, as an End User his queries on Longhorn would be off-topic
on a site meant for developers. As Longhorn is the the Next-Gen
OS, and his question was to current XP users, so his post is
perfectly relevant to this general group of XP users!
Don't you have better things to do than be a stick-in-the-mud?
Chill out! Life is too short to think everything needs to be so
serious!
kurttrail,
Don't you and alias have something better to do with your time
than agitating anything and everything related to MS products?
I got some spare time in between helping people here.
If you hate
everything associated with MS so darn much,
Key word. "IF." I hardly hate anything. It is a useless emotion.
why prolong your agony by
hanging around hoping for some post to jump in and start acting
like a 6 year old bully?
LOL! You were bullied by mere words as a 6 year old? Please! Grow
some balls. Didn't you learn sticks and stones when you were
6.
How about giving other users their own "fair
use" of the newsgroup for gaining assistance and not have to put
up with your childish tirades?
Is someone forcing you to read my posts? If you need some help
setting up a kurttrail filter, just ask. I'll be glad to help you
out with that.
Actually you have been pretty petty in quite a few of your posts
lately.
Those that deserve my disrespect, yes. But that is not the sum total
of my posts. Basically, I can narrow it down to 4 people. Bruce,
Juppy, Carey (in a much lesser extent) and Lamethos. Hell, I don't
think I was really being disrespectful to Mike in this thread. Just
explaining why this thread is appropriate for this group, more so
than in some Longhorn developers group. And eventhough I feel some
guilt over the Linda B. affair, I really didn't do much in the whole
scheme of things. What she happened to her, she really did to
herself.
It would be nice if you practised fair use with your replies.
You made a very unnecessary reply to Cary, for an example that I
don't remember the exact exchange, but I just thought DUH, what were
YOU thinking.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...xp.general/browse_frm/thread/3f1e2f84683928e8
Starting with post # 11
Well this is the thread that he told me to spear the fish in. Being
that I never studied Spanish, but am a bit of a student of pop
culture, I found that to be hysterical. About the funniest moment
where someone announced plonking me!
I looked at the link, and I can't grasp what it is supposed to show.
Maybe I needed to be there to understand.
Basically Carey plonked me and said "Asta la Vista" which roughly
translated means "spear the vista."
LOL! I have yet to see an opinion that isn't biased in some way.
That was my point, we all post with biased opinions and your posting
volume is way up lately and even purely helpful a lot of the time. LOL
I
have an obvious bias. I have the biased belief that people are more
important and have more rights in their own home than some
corporation that sells them a consumer product.
I can't find fault with that concept and would love to see it clearly
defined in a court ruling. Right now, it's a mess. I can only say
Microsoft licenses XP for use on one computer per license and explain
the mechanics of the process. Right now to install XP on a computer,
you have to click the agree to the license agreement option to to
proceed with the XP setup. Your options:
1. You can do this without actually knowing [I.E. Reading the EULA]
what you agreed to,
2. Conciously knowing but you think MS is wrong.
3. You don't care, you don't want to pay MS for their intellectual
property.
4. You read the EULA and you agree.
5. You read and don't agree and elect to return and with much
difficulity [since the agreement is not available until the package
is opened and many sellers will not accept opened software for
refunds] and sometimes personal shipping costs to the seller of the
Windows XP software. Depending on the reason you agreed will determine
how you respond to
the activation process your situation triggers.
6. You push the button, and use your copy of software according to your
own belief that you have the right to fairly use it, since the Supreme
Court has said, In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court defined what
"fair use" means when it comes to individuals.
"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
They didn't just limit individual "fair use" to that of a specific type
of copyrighted material in that case, but they left the definition broad
because individuals have to "fair use" of any type of copyrighted
material they have access to. It was one of the main rationales why
that the video recorder wasn't an infringement, because its main use
wasn't an infringement, that of individuals reproducing and using those
copies of copyrighted material.
"Fair Use" as written in copyright law, is mainly the talking about the
Public and/or commercial "fair uses" of copyrighted material, so in the
Betamax case the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" is for us
individuals in the privacy of our own homes. No copyright owner has the
right to KNOW what we do in our homes with our copies of our copyrighted
material. They do not possess that exclusive right. Remember we are
supposedly a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. We are
not the gov't for the corporate copyright elite.
Later in the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court makes reference to
another Supreme Court decision of the meaning of copyright, and for who
it is that is suppose to benefit the most from it.
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
Being paid by an individual for a copyrighted work once, is a "fair
return," and being paid more than once for the same copyrighted material
by an individual is more than a "fair return" and isn't in the general
public good.
Now Bruce likes to bring up what is written at the Stanford U. site,
which is stating the public and/or commercial aspects of "fair use," but
one place where private non-commercial "fair use" and public and/or
commercial "fair use" are similar is when the copyright owner disagrees
with the interpretation of "fair use" being used.
"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the
rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
So in a situation like copyrighted software, where a company like MS has
known that its copyrighted material has been "fairly used" for more than
a dozen years, and has yet to legally disagree with any definition of
"fair use" of their software in a court of law, after all this time it
is highly unlikely that MS would now challenge this in court, because:
1.) the length of time that they didn't challenge this would be held
against them, and, 2.) they don't possess the exclusive right to such
a use, and it would be highly unlikely that a court would rule in favor
of a corporation to have rights in someone's home to tell them how an
individual can use copyrighted material in the privacy of that home, and
that being in the general public good.
MS has always known that they really don't stand a snowballs chance in
hell of winning such a case, and that is the main reason for the
behavior modification aspects of PA. To win through marketing and
propaganda, what it knows it cannot win under the law and under existing
legal precedent. So MS, like any of us, has the right to sue for just
about anything, but that doesn't mean that they would win. If they
thought they could, then they would have done as the Music Industry has
done over file-sharing. And if you look at those suits closely, the
Music Industry is only going after those that make their music
collections available for upload to other, in other words, distributing
music to others, and the Music Industry hasn't gone after anyone that
has just downloaded music, because individuals have the right to "fairly
use" the copyrighted material that is available to them for their own
private use, but not the right to redistribute it to others.
This is how copyright and "fair use" works today. One day the corporate
copyright lobby may get Congress to change Copyright Law and remove some
of the limitations placed on Copyright Owners under Copyright Law, but
until then, we, as private non-commercial individuals have the right to
"fairly use" the copyrighted material we have access to. No copyright
owner possess the right to say otherwise. That is a fact jack, until
proven otherwise, or Copyright Law is rewritten by Congress, not by a
corporate copyright owner in a post-sale shrink-wrap license.
No need, I really have no desire to feed my ego with easily retreived
archives of posts with replies that look like the poster is an
idiot, when they really didn't understand the topic, missed a key
word and/or was skillfully manipulated to look like and idiot or
even replied to the wrong post.
Huh? How would an explanation of how my sig is self-deprecating do all
that.
Don't know that particular exchange, but you do pick on your favored
victims sometimes unfairly
It is this thread. Just scroll up. As for the Hall of Shame Boys, I
don't think I'm unfair to them at all. And I am definitely not hard
enough on Lamethos. All he is, is a pompous ass that refuses to answer
question, and most of his replies are a variation of the Monty Python
argument of "no, it is,'t."
is wrong on many points. There is no
Sometimes your explanations in minute detail is used as a weapon to
wear down your opponent that has already addressed the questions and
doesn't feel like a redundant reply is necessary. Because you don't
agree with the reply, it doesn't make you right.
Addresed! That is total bull. Most that agrue with me ignore what I
write to bash me instead.
I think maybe your vision is blurred occassionally and you need to
step back and reevaluate.
Sorry, on rare occassion, you are right, however those I'm hardest on
really deserve what they get.
The perfect part is what I am trying to point out to you, your not
apparent reasons should maybe be scrutinized a bit
They are apparent to me, and when it comes down to it, that is all that
matters.
If we plonked you, you would just post anonymously or with an alias
and yes we would be forced to to read you. LOL
I do that on rare occasions. What usually happens is someone plonks me,
yet reads me in the replies from others, and that them back into
unplonking me.
Your own sense of how you use fairplay gives me my doubts about your
interpretation of fairplay.
I do unto other as they have done, and I do it in spades.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
