Windows XP Issue (Activation) III

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Read the first line of his second paragraph.
That sentence conflicts a little with the statement you referenced.

In any case his assertion is false if even one software sale is lost because
of unlicensed software.
WPA has helped to prove his statement wrong.
Since WPA and especially SP-1 for Windows XP, people are asking how to
become legal after discovering they have pirated Windows.
The newsgroups were full of such requests immediately after the release of
SP-1 and they continue as you probably see.
This would not have happened before but now some of these are buying to
become compliant.
Without these tools, Some of these people would continue using unlicensed
software.
The amount of software these people purchase is an indicator of the previous
losses.
So some of these people are now purchasing the software and that is fact and
not conjecture.
Of course not everyone will, but some will and that is the revenue or loss
thereof.

 

[Greg R]

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.

Unknowingly buy a machine that was illegal installed. You call that
person a thief. I would not.

I would not make him/her go pay for another copy. I would go after
the other person and make them pay for it.

I still would not call them a thief. The eula has proven legal or
illegal for home user in court.


Here is my story.
I went to a computer shop that enrolled that show that that had a lot
of different types of Microsoft licensing and certifications

I had a windows 98se system built. I bought this system. They never
gave me a coa or cd with windows 98se cd. Just a copy of the windows
98se cd . However, I had other problems with this system.
I was able to return it and got my money back. I did not report them
at the time I did not know it was a violation of the eula.


I bought a 98se oem from thesoftwareguy.com I did not receive a coa.
The product key was on the envelope. However at the time. It still
maybe legal because it came from Canada. According to a post from a
canadian person oem software can be resold just like a retail version
can.

However, with Microsoft allowing just mouse to be sold with an oem
(See walmart.com). It kind of make my 98se copy legal now or if I go
buy a peace of hardware it would make it legal.


Greg R

 

[Leythos]

Unknowingly buy a machine that was illegal installed. You call that
person a thief. I would not.

Unknowingly being the recipient of stolen property does not make one a
thief, until they learn that the property was stolen and do nothing about
it.

I would not make him/her go pay for another copy. I would go after
the other person and make them pay for it.

That would be nice in a perfect world, but, just because a person
accidentally purchases stolen goods does not absolve them of consequences.
If the seller doesn't make it right then the buyer should.

I still would not call them a thief. The eula has proven legal or
illegal for home user in court.

Just because it's not been tested that we know of, it does not make it any
less ethical or legal at this time - it's still a binding agreement that
both parties enter into knowingly.

 

[kurttrail]

Read the first line of his second paragraph.
That sentence conflicts a little with the statement you referenced.

In any case his assertion is false if even one software sale is lost
because of unlicensed software.
WPA has helped to prove his statement wrong.
Since WPA and especially SP-1 for Windows XP, people are asking how to
become legal after discovering they have pirated Windows.
The newsgroups were full of such requests immediately after the
release of SP-1 and they continue as you probably see.
This would not have happened before but now some of these are buying
to become compliant.
Without these tools, Some of these people would continue using
unlicensed software.
The amount of software these people purchase is an indicator of the
previous losses.
So some of these people are now purchasing the software and that is
fact and not conjecture.
Of course not everyone will, but some will and that is the revenue or
loss thereof.

Ah, but you take his statement out of the context he wrote it in, then
try to dispute his statement out of that context. He wasn't talking
about people that were duped into using unlicensed software. He was
talking about people who knowingly use it because it was available to
them.

How do I know that's what he meant? From the first statement of the
first paragraph.

"Just because someone installs an unlicensed copy of software does not
mean that person would otherwise have bought a licensed copy."

Jupiter, do you really think you are smarter than everbody else that you
can get away with your silly USENET tricks?

--
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]

Read the first line of his second paragraph.
That sentence conflicts a little with the statement you referenced.

In any case his assertion is false if even one software sale is lost because
of unlicensed software.
WPA has helped to prove his statement wrong.
Since WPA and especially SP-1 for Windows XP, people are asking how to
become legal after discovering they have pirated Windows.
The newsgroups were full of such requests immediately after the release of
SP-1 and they continue as you probably see.
This would not have happened before but now some of these are buying to
become compliant.
Without these tools, Some of these people would continue using unlicensed
software.
The amount of software these people purchase is an indicator of the previous
losses.
So some of these people are now purchasing the software and that is fact and
not conjecture.
Of course not everyone will, but some will and that is the revenue or loss
thereof.

You forgot to mention that some of those system were indeed valid
install. The key just got messed up.

I know from my installing I have done. My key got messed up.

Greg R

 

[kurttrail]

That would be nice in a perfect world, but, just because a person
accidentally purchases stolen goods does not absolve them of
consequences. If the seller doesn't make it right then the buyer
should.

And a rape victim should pay for the crimes of the rapist, if the rapist
can't be found?!

--
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"

 

[Alias]

| Leythos wrote:
|
| > That would be nice in a perfect world, but, just because a person
| > accidentally purchases stolen goods does not absolve them of
| > consequences. If the seller doesn't make it right then the buyer
| > should.
|
| And a rape victim should pay for the crimes of the rapist, if the rapist
| can't be found?!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt

And a murder victim?

Heh.

 

[kurttrail]

And a murder victim?

Heh.

Lethal Injectons, I'd suppose, in Leythos's imperfect world where the
victum pays for the crimes committed against them.

--
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]

And a rape victim should pay for the crimes of the rapist, if the rapist
can't be found?!

Nice diversion moron. Seems you can't stay focused to answer posts. Where
do you get off suggesting that women are property to be treated like such?
We were discussion property, not crimes against people that don't involve
property. What a real troll you are - now get back under your bridge you
a$$.

 

[kurttrail]

Nice diversion moron. Seems you can't stay focused to answer posts.

Again, accusing me of stuff you are much more guilty of!

You have yet to show how I twist Section 117, and you have yet to answer
my questions about SCO/IBM.

Where do you get off suggesting that women are property to be treated
like such?

You are the one that wants to treat people ripped off by vender that
sold them pirated software to be treat like such!

We were discussion property, not crimes against people
that don't involve property. What a real troll you are - now get back
under your bridge you a$$.

Software is not property. It is copyrighted material.

"Section 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of
material object - Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive
rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material
object in which the work is embodied." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html

--
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]

Again, accusing me of stuff you are much more guilty of!

You have yet to show how I twist Section 117, and you have yet to answer
my questions about SCO/IBM.




You are the one that wants to treat people ripped off by vender that
sold them pirated software to be treat like such!


Software is not property. It is copyrighted material.

"Section 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of
material object - Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive
rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material
object in which the work is embodied." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html

Keep going, you're showing your true colors and how you feel about people.
Still can't address the hard questions, good work, keep the BS up, you
seem to have a lot of it.

 

[kurttrail]

Keep going, you're showing your true colors and how you feel about
people. Still can't address the hard questions, good work, keep the
BS up, you seem to have a lot of it.

LOL! Yes, I did show my true colors. I answered your post to me line
for line, and where I disputed your erroneous information, I quoted the
law and gave a link to it.

Too bad you don't conduct yourself in the same manner as I do. You just
state BS as fact, and hope no one catches you! ROFL!

--
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]

You both are correct and incorrect Leythos and Kurttrail.

Your are both getting off the subject.

Let say I bought a system a a computer knowing nothing about Microsoft
eula.

Find out later the install was against the eula. I the consumer
should not be force to buy another copy of the os or software because
of the person sold me this to me. Actual the person who sold me
this should buy me the another copy. I should not be consider a thief
because I keep using the software, I thought was legit. Not everyone
call shell out money like it going out of style.


Microsoft has already sold the oems. So, they have made money
already. So, Microsoft does not lose any money. I talking about
legit oem copies.

Wal-mart.com sells oem copies with just a mouse.


Greg R

 

[kurttrail]

You both are correct and incorrect Leythos and Kurttrail.

Your are both getting off the subject.

Let say I bought a system a a computer knowing nothing about Microsoft
eula.

Find out later the install was against the eula. I the consumer
should not be force to buy another copy of the os or software because
of the person sold me this to me. Actual the person who sold me
this should buy me the another copy. I should not be consider a thief
because I keep using the software, I thought was legit. Not everyone
call shell out money like it going out of style.


Microsoft has already sold the oems. So, they have made money
already. So, Microsoft does not lose any money. I talking about
legit oem copies.

Wal-mart.com sells oem copies with just a mouse.

So how was I incorrect, Greg? That was the point I was making, that the
victum shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of his or her
victumizer.

--
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"

 

[Bob I]

In life, if you accept a counterfeit $20 bill, you are out the $20.
next

 

[Greg R]

In life, if you accept a counterfeit $20 bill, you are out the $20.
next

That is different.

Imagine someone who saves money to buy a computer. Then Goed buy a
computer. Find out it violated the eula. They are sure not going to
buy another os or stop using that computer. I know if spend my hard
earn money. I wouldn’t. That does not make my a thief. I did not
steal anything. The company I bought it off of did. I said ealier
microsoft has already been paid for all oem copies-the legit ones.


If a company send you something you did not order. You can legally
keep it, without paying for it.



Greg R

 

[Leythos]

You both are correct and incorrect Leythos and Kurttrail.

Your are both getting off the subject.

Let say I bought a system a a computer knowing nothing about Microsoft
eula.

Find out later the install was against the eula. I the consumer
should not be force to buy another copy of the os or software because
of the person sold me this to me. Actual the person who sold me
this should buy me the another copy. I should not be consider a thief
because I keep using the software, I thought was legit. Not everyone
call shell out money like it going out of style.

You're wrong Greg. If you are using an unauthorized install and find out
about it, once you know that it's not the genuine license, you are bound
to correct it - even if it costs you additional money.

I you buy a computer at WallMart, pay for it, and then I give you change
that contains fake currency, then you attempt to pay for something with
the fake currency, and the person catches that it's fake, they don't hand
you real money to replace the fake money you were give.

Same with anything bought from a thief, you may have to give it back or
pay to make it right...

Microsoft has already sold the oems. So, they have made money
already. So, Microsoft does not lose any money. I talking about
legit oem copies.

But MS was not paid for the illegal copy that was installed on your
computer (in this discussion), so you're out the license. It doesn't
matter if you were to ignorant to check about authenticity, you're still
out a valid licenses and continued use violates the license.

 

[Leythos]

That is different.

Imagine someone who saves money to buy a computer. Then Goed buy a
computer. Find out it violated the eula. They are sure not going to
buy another os or stop using that computer. I know if spend my hard
earn money. I wouldn’t. That does not make my a thief. I did not
steal anything. The company I bought it off of did. I said ealier
microsoft has already been paid for all oem copies-the legit ones.

Continued use of the known stolen property would make you guilty of
receiving stolen property. You can cry all you want, but call MS and ask
if the pirated copy you got with your purchased computer is legit and if
they will support it - the answer is NO - why is that so hard to
understand.

It was you that got screwed in the deal, and you're going to get screwed
again when you have to replace the bootleg installed software.

If a company send you something you did not order. You can legally
keep it, without paying for it.

That statement has nothing to do with this discussion - nice try.

 

[Greg R]

I have nothing against Microsoft. If, I did I would not be even
posting here.

Continued use of the known stolen property would make you guilty of
receiving stolen property. You can cry all you want, but call MS and ask
if the pirated copy you got with your purchased computer is legit and if
they will support it - the answer is NO - why is that so hard to
understand.

You never get support with oems from Microsoft anyhow.

I will change it a little.

This is what I should of said to begin with.


For example a computer shop installs xp improperly.

The new owner takes it home. Found later it violated the eula because
the computer shop Installd the same xp oem on more than one
computer. Still keeping and using your copy is not illegal or thief
period.

What if you can’t buy the software anymore? Still illegal? I don’t
think so. I can't call up microsoft and order windows 98se oem or
even a license.

I have Norton Systemwork 2003 professional Edition.
I am not going to ask if my purchase was legit or not, I don't want
to know.

You all have forgot a very important U.S. Federal Law.
Once a consumer make a purchase it become their property period.
Contracts can not violate the federal or state laws. I am not saying
it does.

I don’t believe everything I read. Even in these groups.





Greg R
I have nothing against Microsoft. If, I did I would not be even
posting here.

 

[Leythos]

You never get support with oems from Microsoft anyhow.

I will change it a little.

This is what I should of said to begin with.


For example a computer shop installs xp improperly.

The new owner takes it home. Found later it violated the eula because
the computer shop Installd the same xp oem on more than one
computer. Still keeping and using your copy is not illegal or thief
period.

It doesn't change anything - the install is STILL A BOOTLEG install. The
OEM's licenses are paid for just like retail - each ONE costs the
vendor/client. If you got a install without a valid license, it's bootleg.
If you know you got a bootleg copy and continue to use it, then you're a
thief.

What if you can't buy the software anymore? Still illegal? I don't
think so. I can't call up microsoft and order windows 98se oem or
even a license.

I don't see where the EULA expires once the software can no longer be
purchase on a store shelf - I can certainly download it from the MSDN
Universal Subscription Site, which still has nothing to do with it being
available for free without licenses to anyone.

Face it - the EULA is clear, one license, one install, why can't you
understand that?