Y
Alias~- said:Yoshi said:Don't make it technical. Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it.
Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing, nor is it a crime. It is
a civil offense. Whether fair use applies to installing a copy of XP on
another computer in your home has never been tested in a court of law and
MS would never dare to try. How many casual pirates have been prosecuted?
Not one.
That said, civil or criminals laws are usually changed by disobedience,
i.e., prohibition and civil rights. Are you saying that booze should be
illegal again and that blacks should have separate public bathrooms and
drinking fountains and sit at the back of the bus because once that was
the law?
Alias
Yoshi said:
Alias~- said:Many people can only use a pirated version because they don't have the
money to buy XP or, Vista. Is that figured in? Are XP and Vista only for
the rich folks? Theft is always figured in as a cost of doing business
by any competent organization and the cost is always passed on to the
customers, be it MS, Walmart, Michellen Tires or Sears so you can bet
your booties that MS isn't losing money through piracy. But I (and you)
digress..
Here is my main point, the one you ignored:
Forcing paying customers to be in the crossfire between MS and the
pirates *will* hurt Microsoft big time. If you think someone is
stealing, plainly and simply, you call the proper legal authorities, not
force your customers to prove they are not pirates over and over and
over again. Making it so that one cannot upgrade one's computer without
buying another license is stealing and the end user can't pass it on ...
Alias
Yoshi?
Alias