Windows XP Issue (Activation) III

[kurttrail]

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.


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?

You mean the EULA limits you to one install? Obviously you don't have a
clear understanding of it!

--
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"

 

[Plato]

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

At the tellers counter at my bank once they handed me a fake $20. I said
I didn't want it and they said they dont take counterfeit money back.

 

[kurttrail]

At the tellers counter at my bank once they handed me a fake $20. I
said I didn't want it and they said they dont take counterfeit money
back.

I hope you didn't let them get away with that.

--
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]

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."

You don't need a source, you just need a brain. If nothing is
removed from the possession of the seller, and the seller is not
hindered in his selling, then the earnings of the seller are not
diminished. Whether the person using unauthorized software might,
or might not, have bought an authorized copy, is conjecture, and
then we'd be talking about possible, conjectured future earnings
-- which have as much solidity as fairy fluff.

 

[Steve N.]

At the tellers counter at my bank once they handed me a fake $20. I said
I didn't want it and they said they dont take counterfeit money back.

You should have called the police.

What to do if you receive conterfeit money:

http://www.secretservice.gov/money_receive.shtml

Steve

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I demonstrated in my post to Kurt there is a loss.
Sales are lost as I demonstrated.
The value or amount of the loss is irrelevant.
It is for the owner to decide their terms, others can accept them or go
elsewhere for some of the other many options.

You refer to the seller on two points below.
While those points are a beginning, they are only a part of the complete
picture.
But you have omitted other points, the consumers being one.
Some of them with pirated software do buy once they realize the situation.
As I demonstrated some of them are buying so they are losses prevented.
That is not conjecture.
Piracy at all levels hurts.
This does not apply only to Microsoft, this applies to anyone that creates
software.

You can not prove there is no loss, since there is a loss.

 

[Steve N.]

You don't need a source, you just need a brain. If nothing is removed
from the possession of the seller, and the seller is not hindered in his
selling, then the earnings of the seller are not diminished. Whether the
person using unauthorized software might, or might not, have bought an
authorized copy, is conjecture, and then we'd be talking about possible,
conjectured future earnings -- which have as much solidity as fairy fluff.

Looks like fairy fluff might have more earning potential:

http://p.etal.tripod.com/lrgcustpurplefluff.htm
http://p.etal.tripod.com/lrgcustpinkfluff.htm

Not to mention that cotton candy's original name was "fairy fluff." I
wonder how much revenue has been generated by the sale of cotton candy.

Steve

 

[Greg R]

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.


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.


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.

I not saying any more on this subject.

It is still not theft period. So quit saying it is.

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.



Greg R

 

[Plato]

I hope you didn't let them get away with that.

Long story but turned out OK.

 

[kurttrail]

I demonstrated in my post to Kurt there is a loss.
Sales are lost as I demonstrated.
The value or amount of the loss is irrelevant.
It is for the owner to decide their terms, others can accept them or
go elsewhere for some of the other many options.

You refer to the seller on two points below.
While those points are a beginning, they are only a part of the
complete picture.
But you have omitted other points, the consumers being one.
Some of them with pirated software do buy once they realize the
situation. As I demonstrated some of them are buying so they are
losses prevented. That is not conjecture.
Piracy at all levels hurts.
This does not apply only to Microsoft, this applies to anyone that
creates software.

You can not prove there is no loss, since there is a loss.

LOL! Of course you forget I replied, to your post, which you have yet
to answer.

"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"