Build 6000...

  • Thread starter Thread starter spu
  • Start date Start date
I took a shower this morning, used RightGuard and everything.

I still smell a troll.
 
No law does, but when you install Windows you have an option to agree to the
EULA which states that you need to activate it within the time frame. The
choice is yours to make, either agree to the conditions and fulfill them or
not. If you don't agree to the conditions for the use of the license, then
don't install it. It's that simple. No one is forcing anyone to use Vista or
any other Windows OS, there are alternatives that work quite well. While the
claim is that there is no legal precedent, the simple fact is that this is a
contract for use of a product. Contracts are agreed to by both parties
voluntarily, by not activating or by circumventing activation the end user
is in violation of the contract. Contracts entered into willingly by both
parties are enforcible under the laws of most countries. Whether or not
Microsoft chooses to enforce that is more a question of cost and logistics
than of legality.

As an aside, I fail to see why those that rail against Windows licensing
don't simply migrate to Linux. It's not like it's any more difficult to
learn than Windows and it satisfies the sought-after condition of an
unrestricted license for use.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
What are you referring to with "UCC"

You do not understand the implication of the Uniform Commercial Code, or you
would not have made that statement.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

<snipped for brevity>
 
John said:
There are many cases for precedent, however, anyone with any training
knows you don't have to have legal precedent to have a valid law.
Terms held 'not unconscionable are generally upheld. And also anyone
with training would know that UCC is applicable not copyright law.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Copyright

"The international copyright treaty, Article 4, equates computer
programs with literary works. Thus, computer programs are automatically
placed under copyright, which grants the copy owner normal rights use,
and others fair use of the computer material."
 
Colin said:
Copyright law. More channels for legal distribution will open up (volume
licensing, for example) between now and public availability in January.
6000 is not an evaluation version so don't get into the warez stuff.
Click to expand...

I don't need the warez stuff, I have access to a Technet Plus
subscription at work.

Copyright law is a pretty broad answer, can you please be a bit more
specific?
 
Colin said:
It is not shareware or freeware. If you don't activate the copy will become
disfunctional.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure it will, but that does not answer my question.
 
Colin said:
You are just playing "But what if?" games. Forget it and go play with
Linux.
Click to expand...

Well, as much as you might like me to go away, I won't. You could
always bin me or ignore my posts.
 
Richard said:
I took a shower this morning, used RightGuard and everything.

I still smell a troll.
Click to expand...

Well, if calling me a troll makes you happy, then more power to you! :)
 
Rick said:
No law does, but when you install Windows you have an option to agree to
the EULA which states that you need to activate it within the time
frame. The choice is yours to make, either agree to the conditions and
fulfill them or not. If you don't agree to the conditions for the use of
the license, then don't install it. It's that simple. No one is forcing
anyone to use Vista or any other Windows OS, there are alternatives that
work quite well. While the claim is that there is no legal precedent,
the simple fact is that this is a contract for use of a product.
Contracts are agreed to by both parties voluntarily, by not activating
or by circumventing activation the end user is in violation of the
contract. Contracts entered into willingly by both parties are
enforcible under the laws of most countries. Whether or not Microsoft
chooses to enforce that is more a question of cost and logistics than of
legality.

As an aside, I fail to see why those that rail against Windows licensing
don't simply migrate to Linux.
Click to expand...

Already working on it!
It's not like it's any more difficult to
learn than Windows and it satisfies the sought-after condition of an
unrestricted license for use.
Click to expand...

Agreed! :)
 
There is a law against murder in most countries. If a murder has never been
committed in a country, does one person need to murder another before it
becomes law? Or is it sufficient for the governing body to state that it is
illegal?

Under the provisions of the listed programs, unauthorized redistribution of
the software is not permitted. By your implications, it is not illegal as no
one has been prosecuted yet for violating their program agreement. Law
requires adherence to standards, accepted practices, and contractual
agreements, not that they be violated prior to law being established.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
Unfortunately, it is theft, as is any unauthorized redistribution of
intellectual property. Microsoft's controls are in place in an effort to
reduce this type of theft. Like it or not, they reserve the right to
determine the conditions under which their software may be redistributed.
The very cause of all this excessive protection of intellectual property are
the thieves themselves,not the consumer. It is, however, the consumer that
is paying the heaviest price.

I'm not saying all their business practices are fair, but it is the consumer
that determines which products are in demand and which fail. Currently,
despite the disparity in pricing, people prefer to pay for Windows rather
than run a free version of 'nix. People are strange.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
Rick said:
Unfortunately, it is theft, as is any unauthorized redistribution of
intellectual property. Microsoft's controls are in place in an effort to
reduce this type of theft. Like it or not, they reserve the right to
determine the conditions under which their software may be
redistributed. The very cause of all this excessive protection of
intellectual property are the thieves themselves,not the consumer. It
is, however, the consumer that is paying the heaviest price.

I'm not saying all their business practices are fair, but it is the
consumer that determines which products are in demand and which fail.
Currently, despite the disparity in pricing, people prefer to pay for
Windows rather than run a free version of 'nix. People are strange.
Click to expand...

So using the software for the 30 day trial before it goes into the
reduced functionality mode is theft? That makes no sense.

Is it theft to borrow a friend's retail CD of Vista to run a repair
install on your machine because your disc is misplaced or damaged if you
have a license?

Is it theft to get it from a torrent or some other source and try it out
before spending the large amount of money it would cost to purchase it?

The source does not make it theft. Cracking a copy when you have not
purchased a license is what makes it theft.

Rick, you seem like a real nice, level headed guy. We may disagree
about this, but I have to say I respect your level headed approach to
the conversation.
 
Rick said:
There is a law against murder in most countries. If a murder has never
been committed in a country, does one person need to murder another
before it becomes law? Or is it sufficient for the governing body to
state that it is illegal?
Click to expand...

Well, if something is stated as a law, then it is a law. In the US,
there is a process which a "law" (for lack of a better term) needs to go
through before it is actually a verifyable law. My point is that many
posters here seem to take tings as law that are not actually law.
Something is illegal only if there has been a law made against it. It
is possibly unauthorized, but it is not illegal.
Under the provisions of the listed programs, unauthorized redistribution
of the software is not permitted. By your implications, it is not
illegal as no one has been prosecuted yet for violating their program
agreement.
Correct.

Law requires adherence to standards, accepted practices, and
contractual agreements, not that they be violated prior to law being
established.
Click to expand...

Any idea that is to become a law also requires going through a
parlimentary procedure before it is actually signed into law to become a
law. That's whats missing here.
 
John said:
We're talking about licenses, not code. Get your facts together and
stop rambling.
Click to expand...

Which goes back to my original question. If you have a license that you
paid for, does it really matter where you get the software?
 
In the US a law is in force upon passage and until a court overturns it. It
is not submitted to any entity for "verification."
 
Back
Top