Windows XP Issue (Activation) III

[Leythos]

I'm sorry, but didn't you Plonk me?

Did you just want to argue (and act like a troll) or did you have
something constructive to add to the area that you brought up to the group
in that post of your?

I would have suspected that had you really been sincere in that post of
yours that you would have wanted to learn about viable options instead of
constantly acting like a troll.

 

[Leythos]

| On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:14:16 -0500, kurttrail wrote:
|
| > if there is ever a consumer & computer moron friendly version
| > of Linux, that will run software developed for MS OSs. And if there is
| > a company that develops this version of Linux before MS releases
| > Longhorn, MS will rue the day that they ever started this EULA war with
| > their private non-commercial customer.
|
| Now, here you've got a good new topic. Since we're not going to agree on
| the validity of the EULA, lets address the above question:
|
| About two months ago I started reviewing many different versions of
| alternative OS's, I narrowed it down to primary testing of SUSE 9.1
| Personal, Mandrake 10.0 Official, and RedHat Fedora Core 3. SUSE I started
| with a Laptop (P3/600/512MB), 3 small workstations (P3/833/256) and a
| single Dual (P3/1g/2g RAM) as my test cases. SUSE 9.1 Personal installed
| on all systems and found and setup all hardware, but the KDE desktop
| (Window manager) was slow. Mandrake 10.0 Official also installed and found
| all the hardware, but the desktop didn't detect the video resolutions
| properly and I had to edit the KDE configuration file. Fedora Core 3
| installed and worked perfectly, as did ALL of the applications and servers
| it installed. On FC3 I selected the GNOME window manager (very windows
| like) and have been able to manage ALL of the resources via graphical
| interfaces, the only command line I've used is to PING systems.
|
| At this point I've wiped the SUSE and MKD systems and started using FC3 on
| them for testing and learning - I'm using one of the P3's right now to
| type this.
|
| Now, it took 90 minutes to install the 3 CD's, but that included all the
| office apps, editors, servers (HTTP, Mail, FTP, and others), it then took
| about 2 hours to download all the updates (much like SP2 and Office 2003
| SP) much the same as Windows does for a fully installed machine.
|
| For those people using Exchange servers, well, not to fret, Evolution is a
| Outlook like product that will work with Exchange (and does all the
| Outlook things, contacts, calendar (and it looks like Outlooks), tasks,
| email, etc..) as well as working with POP accounts and IMAP.
|
| So, what was the reason for this? Simple, I've run into to many home users
| that have compromised machines and don't know if they have an alternative,
| and I didn't know either. I've found that FC3 provides a great FREE
| platform with simple to use instructions for installation, great tools for
| editing documents and email and browsing the web, and even has about 20
| cheap games installed for people that want it. Oh, it also works with my
| Phaser 8400B color wax/thermal laser and my HP 1300 and my HP 1200.
|
| The difference between Windows XP (and version) and FC3 - FC3 comes with
| servers (web, FTP, file sharing - SAMBA), comes with Office capable
| applications (Write = Word, Calc = Excel, DIA = cheap visio, Impress =
| Power Point, and Math which I've not looked at).
|
| As for reliability of the platform - I did have one crash, when it
| upgraded the (and it has a little automatic update tool that lets you know
| when updates are ready) kernel from 2.6.9-1.667 to 2.6.10-1.741, it would
| not boot and I don't know enough to fix it. I wiped and reinstalled and
| did the update and all is working perfectly. Some updates to the kernel
| require rebooting the entire system no matter what linux zealots tell you.
|
| I have this system on a port of my desktop KVM and my Win XP Prof SP2
| machine on the other, and with the exception of needing use XP to manage
| the firewall (I run a WatchGuard Firebox that uses a Win based GUI tool)
| I've not used my XP Prof box for almost 3 days now.
|
| There are some difficulties - I've been unable to get R/W access to my
| Windows 2000/2003 servers for file access, but I've not put a lot of
| effort into it yet.
|
| So, aside from MAC, which is now running a variant of BSD, there is a
| viable, real, working, full featured, simple to install, easy to use,
| alternative for the masses of non-technical home users, and it's free and
| can be installed on as many machines as the user wants
|

When it really becomes user friendly -- your description leads me to believe
it isn't yet -- MS may have to (gasp!) change its EULA and lower prices.
Doing that now would be a very smart move on MS' part. Waiting would not be
very smart.

What part of the description leads you to believe that FC3 is "less" user
friendly than Windows XP?

Since noobs can't repair either, since service packs can cause either to
not boot, what part is different?

 

[kurttrail]

Did you just want to argue (and act like a troll) or did you have
something constructive to add to the area that you brought up to the
group in that post of your?

I have conversations with people that respect my right to express my
opinions. Those that don't feel my wrath. I am not a troll, and always
have something constructive to say to those that are willing to listen.
You have already proven that you are only willing to listen to yourself.

I would have suspected that had you really been sincere in that post
of yours that you would have wanted to learn about viable options
instead of constantly acting like a troll.

I am sincere about almost everthing I write, even most of my jokes. I
just won't bother to treat someone with respect, that doesn't respect
that I have a right to my opinion, and that runs away and hides from
what they don't want to hear.

So Plonk me again, and this time make it permanent, because you have
already lost any chance of me treating you with any respect.
Chickensh*t Plonkers don't deserve any respect at all.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

I
just won't bother to treat someone with respect, that doesn't respect
that I have a right to my opinion, and that runs away and hides from
what they don't want to hear.

Funny, you seem to make a lot of statements that indicate what you say is
fact and not just opinion, sure you also state, from time to time, that
you have opinions, and I don't have an issue with that, but making a
statement as fact that is incorrect is not an opinion when presented as a
fact.

So Plonk me again, and this time make it permanent, because you have
already lost any chance of me treating you with any respect.
Chickensh*t Plonkers don't deserve any respect at all.

I never asked for respect from a troll or pirate, and I would never expect
a troll/pirate to respect anyone that believes they are not the sainted
brother of god himself and above all rules/ethics that bind most people.

If you didn't always divert the discussion when you're backed into a
corner you might seem more credible, but you can't ever respond when
backed into a answer that would make you look wrong in the eyes of the
majority. Much like your post that started this current track - you were
presented with a very easy to run/viable alternative and you could not
respond properly without looking like you have no clue, so you attack,
which is the true way that trolls and the ignorant act.

 

[kurttrail]

Funny, you seem to make a lot of statements that indicate what you
say is fact and not just opinion, sure you also state, from time to
time, that you have opinions, and I don't have an issue with that,
but making a statement as fact that is incorrect is not an opinion
when presented as a fact.

Example of me expressing my opinion as fact.

I never asked for respect from a troll or pirate, and I would never
expect a troll/pirate to respect anyone that believes they are not
the sainted brother of god himself and above all rules/ethics that
bind most people.

LOL! I show respect to many people that disagree with my opinion. I
just believe in doing unto others as they have done to me.

If you didn't always divert the discussion when you're backed into a
corner you might seem more credible, but you can't ever respond when
backed into a answer that would make you look wrong in the eyes of the
majority.

I don't divert conversations, I just take them where they lead. I'm a
very responsive person.

Much like your post that started this current track - you
were presented with a very easy to run/viable alternative and you
could not respond properly without looking like you have no clue, so
you attack, which is the true way that trolls and the ignorant act.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please be a little more
specific.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Example of me expressing my opinion as fact.

Your constant postings concerning that the EULA does not apply to home
users or non-commercial users, your twisting of the title (entirety)
sections....

LOL! I show respect to many people that disagree with my opinion. I
just believe in doing unto others as they have done to me.

I believe you've done the name calling more than anyone else in the group,
and in fact, I seem to recall you making up silly names for people you
reply too before they did anything rude to you. Hardly a respect and do
unto others type action.

I don't divert conversations, I just take them where they lead. I'm a
very responsive person.

Call it what you like, taking the conversation in another direction
without providing an answer to questions posted is a common diversionary
tactic of many trolls. If you're not a troll, and stop acting like one, I
would apologize for calling you one, until then, it stands as being a
troll in my book.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please be a little more
specific.

Sure, read back two (or three) replies and you'll see where I replied to
your comments about easy to use alternatives, which you then replied in a
rude, off base manner.

 

[kurttrail]

Your constant postings concerning that the EULA does not apply to home
users or non-commercial users,

Specifically what. Quote me.

your twisting of the title (entirety)
sections....

I don't twist it at all! I call it an "interpretation" and I show every
one the links to the definitions to the words that I change in my
"interpretation."

Unlike you that says it backs up licensing on ONE computer, when nothing
in it can be interpreted and meaning licensing!

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117: Limitation on Exclusive Rights:
Computer Programs

In Copyright law "Exclusive Rights" mean the copyright owners rights.
The main gist of Section 117 is to LIMIT the "Exclusive Rights" of the
copyright owner!

Then Section 117 (a) is titled:

"Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy."

Adaptation - the process or state of changing to fit new circumstances
or conditions, or the resulting change.

And that's pretty much describes the act of installation software from a
CD to a computer. And Do I really have to define what ADDITIONAL
means?!

Section 117 (a) continues:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provided"

It is "NOT AN INFRINGEMENT" to make "ANOTHER COPY OR ADAPTATION." Can
you say it means anything about only one copy?

Now Section 117 gives 2 different condition when it making "another copy
or adaptation" is "not an infringement" on the exclusive rights of the
Computer Program Copyright Owner.

These conditions are stated as "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)", not (1) AND
(2). Do you know and understand the difference between the two
statements?

(1) AND (2) means that both conditions must be met in order that making
an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement."

"(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)" means that only one of these conditions
need to be met in order that making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is
"not an infringement."

Do you understand so far?

Condition (2) is fairly simple to understand, as it says you can make
backups, and has little bearing on using "ANOTHER copy or adaptation."
Do you agree?

Condition (1) is a little more complicated so first I'll quote it first
in conjuction with part (a), and then break it down into what I believe
it means.

". . . . Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
Copy-"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provided . . . . that such a new copy or adaptation is created
as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner . . .
.."

See all I did was removed "(a)" and "(1)" and the "or" at the end.

". . . . that such a new copy or adaptation . . . ."

"New" refers to the "additional" or "another copy or another adaptation"
from part (a).

". . . . is created as an essential step . . . ."

In my interpretation I say " is made as a necessary step"

created - to produce something as a result, or make something happen

essential - necessary: of the highest importance for achieving something

See so far how my "interpretation is going, using the definitions to put
the law into laymans terms?

". . . . in the utilization of the computer program . . . ."

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . in making use of the software . . . ."

Are you willing to give me that "computer program" means "software?"

utilization - make use of something: to make use of or find a practical
use for something.

So far I'm twisting nothing, am I?

". . . . in conjunction with . . . . "

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . together with . . . ."

in conjunction with - together with or combined with something

Now we come to the hard part, the difference between "a" and "the"

the - CORE MEANING: an adjective, the definite article, used before
somebody or something that has already been mentioned or identified, or
something that is understood by both the speaker and hearer, as distinct
from "a" or "an"


a - CORE MEANING: the indefinite article, used before a singular
countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known or
specified, in contrast with "the," referring to somebody or something
known to the listener.

". . . . a machine . . . ."

Had the writers of this law had the intention that this "new copy or
adaptation" could only be used "in conjunction with" the computer with
the original adaption, then they would have written "THE machince," but
they didn't. They purposefully wrote "a machine," a thing not
previously known or specified.

So that's where I get my "interpretation" of "a machine" meaning:

". . . . a previously unknown computer . . . ."

Then part (1) ends with:

". . . . and that it is used in no other manner . . . ."

Which I use word for word in my interpretation.

So let's put it all together, and put the law and my "interpretation" up
side by side.

First the law again:

". . . . Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
Copy-"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provided . . . . that such a new copy or adaptation is created
as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner . . .
.."

Now my "interpretation:"

". . . . Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another installation provided . . . . that such a new
installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software
together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no
other manner . . . ."

So you see, Section 117 (a) says absolutely nothing about using software
on only one computer, or protecting the exclusive rights of the
copyright owner over that of the owner of a copy of software. Section
117 (a) is a "Limitations on [the] exclusive rights" of the copyright
owner, and is a protection "the owner of a copy of a computer program"
from being sued by the copyright owner for "infringement" for making
"additional copies or adaptations."

Now show me, in as much detail as I have, where I twisted the meaning of
the law, and how you think the law really means software can only be
installed on One Computer.

I believe you've done the name calling more than anyone else in the
group, and in fact, I seem to recall you making up silly names for
people you reply too before they did anything rude to you. Hardly a
respect and do unto others type action.

I usually wait until some disrespects me first, before throwing the
first stone. But I was raised in New Jersey, where the put down is an
art form. Calling me a name isn't what I call disrespect.
Disrespecting me for my opinions was what I was talking about.

You keep saying that such and such is a violation of the EULA, like it
is a fact, yet you never answered the following.

"Right now, SCO is suing IBM for violating its UNIX licensing agreement.
Has IBM violated the licensing agreement before a court rules it has,
just because SCO and its supporters say so? If so, then why have a
trial?"

So has any private non-commercial individual violated MS's EULA, when MS
has never even sued one for violating the EULA, let alone proved it in a
court of law?

And you talk about me stating stuff as facts! I go out of my way to
show and explain my opinions. You hide from the tough questions when
you can't answer them without making yourself look like a fool!

Call it what you like, taking the conversation in another direction
without providing an answer to questions posted is a common
diversionary tactic of many trolls.

And that is exactly what you did when you just un-Plonked me. I could
care less about your opinions about the current state of Linux, and your
post was totally tangential to what I replied to someone else.

You must have been seeing your reflection in your computer monitor as
you typed all this nonsense about me, as you are more guilty of it than
I ever am!

If you're not a troll, and stop
acting like one, I would apologize for calling you one, until then,
it stands as being a troll in my book.

I'm not acting like one. I'm acting like a person that has his own
opinion and is willing to defend it. I explain my opinions, and I
answer all questions asked of me, made by people I respect. I don't
respect you at all, as you are not worth any. You are a boil on my ass,
and it's time to pop you!

Sure, read back two (or three) replies and you'll see where I replied
to your comments about easy to use alternatives, which you then
replied in a rude, off base manner.

Like I already said, totally tangential to the post you replied to. And
you have the gall to say I'm the one that replies by going off on
tangents!

And here is my guess: If you reply at all, and I see that as a very big
IF, you will rant and rave some more about me being a troll, and ignore,
or dismiss in a sentence or two, the parts about Section 117, and about
SCO/IBM, without showing us, in as much detail I have, why you think I
twist Section 117 or why you feel it right to tell people they have
violated a EULA that is as legally unsubstantiated as MS's when it comes
to private non-commercial use of MS software.

Put up or Plonk me again. Otherwise I'm just gonna ream you a new
a**hole.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Put up or Plonk me again. Otherwise I'm just gonna ream you a new
a**hole.

Nice to see I was right about you.

 

[Leythos]

You can go over you ten connection limit. Very easy.
This is why. A couple of people made a patch for the tcpip.sys
I got one that has an unlimited number of connections, actual it not
unlimited. But it is more than enough. It works on xp sp2 only.

Keyboard, Mouse, Printer, Modem, Monitor, Speaker, Microphones,
Zip drive, Camera, tv card, Agp graphics card, Network Card, Internet
connection, Ftp. e.t.c.

More than 10 items whoops.

I know some of these item may not be counted but you get the idea.

I think you're off base here - I don't think, from my experience, they
count any hardware device attached directly to the system, it's only
connections via some form of network device (from my experience). When I
read that part I took it as 10 network connections from remote nodes.

 

[Greg R]

. I esspecially
like the bit about only allowing 10 devices access to the licensed system.

You can go over you ten connection limit. Very easy.
This is why. A couple of people made a patch for the tcpip.sys
I got one that has an unlimited number of connections, actual it not
unlimited. But it is more than enough. It works on xp sp2 only.


Keyboard, Mouse, Printer, Modem, Monitor, Speaker, Microphones,
Zip drive, Camera, tv card, Agp graphics card, Network Card, Internet
connection, Ftp. e.t.c.


More than 10 items whoops.

I know some of these item may not be counted but you get the idea.


I wondering if xp sp2 would install on computer that were set up for
more than 10 connections.


Greg R

 

[kurttrail]

Nice to see I was right about you.

And boy is it great to see you totally ignored all that I wrote on
Section 117, and refused to answer the questions concerning SCO/IBM, and
when one is actually considered to have violated a licensing agreement!
And you proved to my satisfaction at the very least that you are guilty
of EVERYTHING you falsely accused me of!

A real man would have rose up to my challenge, and tried to explain away
to the group how I twisted Section 117 after I showed step by every
little effin' step how I came to my interpretation of it! A real man
would have rose up to my challenge, and tried to explain how, what I
call to be an interpretation, is really stating my opinion as fact! A
real man would have rose up to my challenge, and tried to explain how
I'm all wrong about IBM, that they really have violated the UNIX license
just because SCO claims they have, and how you are right in telling
people that they violated MS EULA just because you claim it to be so!

But you have absolutely no balls at all, as you let two little
meaningless sentences at the end of my post cut them off for you. You
are a MicroEunuch! And you must have had a lobotomy at the same time as
the castration, because only someone who had a part of their brain
removed would have made such a lame reply, if they couldn't rise up to
my challenges. A moron would have known enough to have just left well
enough alone, and not replied at all, just to piss me off at getting no
reply to a post that took a bit of time to compose. But you just made
my year with your total lameness as a man, and it's only Febuary!

You are my bitch!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Greg R]

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a
"fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
such a use."

I hate to say this. He is correct on this point only. I saw this
part on the news recently.

Just like calderas has not proving that Linux is copyrighted by them
and they basically lost. I read this in the Linux news groups.




Greg R

 

[kurttrail]

I hate to say this. He is correct on this point only. I saw this
part on the news recently.

Just like calderas has not proving that Linux is copyrighted by them
and they basically lost. I read this in the Linux news groups.

I'm not sure that I am understanding you correctly, but I'll answer what
I am guessing you mean.


Calderas is not an individual and the copyright owner does have the
exclusive right to limit their use.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Guest]

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (c) (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not
Affected.-(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies,
limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use,
under this title.

While this wouldn't protect someone in business, or someone who purchase
the software, it would protect those that did purchase copy-protected
software and circumvented the copy-protection for their private
non-commercial use, especially if the court followed the Supreme Court
precedent that, "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a
"fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
such a use."

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Except that's not what I'm talking about: TITLE 17 Section 1201 a: Violations regarding circumvention of technoloical measures - 1A: "No person shall circumvent a technoloical measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." There is lots of additional gobbeldy gook in there of course, but this is the core point because MS has included the following in the EULA for Windows XP: "Mandatory Activation.The license rights granted under this EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after you first install the Product unless you supply information required to activate your licensed copy in the manner described during the setup sequence of the Product. You can activate the Product through the use of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply. You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Product. There are technological measures in this Product that are designed to prevent unlicensed or illegal

use of the Product. You agree that we may use those measures."

The "Technological Measures in this product" that MS speaks of here is the
requirement for activation. Now while there have only been a few individuals
that MS has gone after lately, (well, in 2003 actually.) This is the very
sticking point they fall on. By violating the specific requirements of the
EULA and installing the product on two active machines, the user technically
violate the "Technological Measures" in the software and is therefore in
violation of Title 17 Section 1201. I agree that the chance of getting nailed
for this is remote at best, but every time MS releases a new product they
tighten things to make it more of a pain to do this very thing. That's their
right I guess but it doesn't exactly endear them the Teeming Millions. If
they do it again in Longhorn, and from what they said at the last OEM meeting
I went to they plan on it, I would look for a sharp increase in the sale of
Linex.

 

[Greg R]

tighten things to make it more of a pain to do this very thing. That's their

right I guess but it doesn't exactly endear them the Teeming Millions. If
they do it again in Longhorn, and from what they said at the last OEM meeting
I went to they plan on it, I would look for a sharp increase in the sale of
Linex.

Michael,

Could you explain the tightening thing microsoft plans to do in more
detail. If you don't want to post it here. Feel free to email me.
Just remove the y e s from my email.

The problem is not microsoft. It is the stores. We need to get
Linux, mini Mac, and other systems in the stores


Greg R

 

[kurttrail]

use of the Product. You agree that we may use those measures."

The "Technological Measures in this product" that MS speaks of here
is the requirement for activation. Now while there have only been a
few individuals that MS has gone after lately, (well, in 2003
actually.) This is the very sticking point they fall on. By violating
the specific requirements of the EULA and installing the product on
two active machines, the user technically violate the "Technological
Measures" in the software and is therefore in violation of Title 17
Section 1201. I agree that the chance of getting nailed for this is
remote at best, but every time MS releases a new product they tighten
things to make it more of a pain to do this very thing. That's their
right I guess but it doesn't exactly endear them the Teeming
Millions. If they do it again in Longhorn, and from what they said at
the last OEM meeting I went to they plan on it, I would look for a
sharp increase in the sale of Linex.

I would like to hear more about the "few individuals that MS has gone
after lately, (well, in 2003 actually.)" Any details or links to info
about this, I would be very interested to read about.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Al Smith]

Here is the acid test to me: If you violate the EULA and install an

unlicensed copy of ANYTHING, did the vendor realize a loss of revenue? In
all cases, if you are using an unlicensed copy which was not paid for
according to the license, then the answer is YES.

It doesn't make any difference if the unlicensed copy was sold to you from
another thief, or if a company installs 80 copies and only has licenses
for 79, or if you install a second copy without a license for it, it's
still one less (or more) sale that the vendor gets.

Why does this nonsense get repeated? Just because someone installs
an unlicensed copy of software does not mean that person would
otherwise have bought a licensed copy. Do you think everyone who
downloads mp3 music files would otherwise have gone out and bought
the albums they are on? No, of course not.

The unauthorized reproduction of software does not diminish the
earnings of the software seller in the slightest degree. It does
not reduce in any way the wealth possessed by the seller. That the
person who uses unlicensed software might otherwise have bought
the software is conjecture, based on no evidence. The only thing
we can be sure of is that it takes nothing tangible away from the
software seller.

 

[Leythos]

Why does this nonsense get repeated? Just because someone installs
an unlicensed copy of software does not mean that person would
otherwise have bought a licensed copy. Do you think everyone who
downloads mp3 music files would otherwise have gone out and bought
the albums they are on? No, of course not.

The unauthorized reproduction of software does not diminish the
earnings of the software seller in the slightest degree. It does
not reduce in any way the wealth possessed by the seller. That the
person who uses unlicensed software might otherwise have bought
the software is conjecture, based on no evidence. The only thing
we can be sure of is that it takes nothing tangible away from the
software seller.

I completely disagree with all that you've stated. Anyone that follows
that logic and makes unauthorized copies and installs then against the
vendors licensing is a simple thief - live with it, many people think of
pirates and thieves that way.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Please cite the source for this statement:
"The unauthorized reproduction of software does not diminish the earnings of
the software seller in the slightest degree."

Statements such as that are almost always false.
How did the source prove none of the unlicensed software would have been
bought if piracy was not an option?

 

[kurttrail]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

"Why does this nonsense get repeated? Just because someone installs
an unlicensed copy of software does not mean that person would
otherwise have bought a licensed copy. Do you think everyone who
downloads mp3 music files would otherwise have gone out and bought
the albums they are on? No, of course not."

Please cite the source for this statement:
"The unauthorized reproduction of software does not diminish the
earnings of the software seller in the slightest degree."

"It does
not reduce in any way the wealth possessed by the seller. That the
person who uses unlicensed software might otherwise have bought
the software is conjecture, based on no evidence. The only thing
we can be sure of is that it takes nothing tangible away from the
software seller."

Statements such as that are almost always false.
How did the source prove none of the unlicensed software would have
been bought if piracy was not an option?

Al didn't say that the the person would or wouldn't he said it was
conjecture to say that they would have purchased it. And that is the
truth.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"