Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[caver1]

LOL! He can't even tell you who you supposedly lied to. Microsoft? They
don't even know you exist, let alone that you read (or did not read)
the text and clicked that button, so how can you be lying to Microsoft?

This is in fact the basis upon which some countries invalidate shrinkwrap
agreements, and I believe it's also the basis upon which the UCC
conflicts with - and may override - the DMCA. To be binding, a contract
must be agreed upon between two or more parties and each party has to be
aware of all the other's agreement to the contract. In other words, if you
sign a contract in the privacy of your own home and the other party to the
contract isn't aware that you signed it, then the contract isn't legally
binding. Now substutite "Click 'I Agree'" for "sign a contract".

At the same time courts have called many of them nonbinding because they
are not legal even if both parties agreed to it in the first place. That
doesn't mean that either one is unethical or maybe only one but it is
still not a legal contract.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

At the same time courts have called many of them nonbinding because they
are not legal even if both parties agreed to it in the first place. That
doesn't mean that either one is unethical or maybe only one but it is
still not a legal contract.

Excellent points all, gentlemen! Too bad so many others wear the MS
blinders, like old horses being led to the slaughter.

 

[Gregg Hill]

When you advocate using the single license you purchased to install on
multiple computers, you have advocated stealing. You have been pushing that
attitude in your posts, screaming about your fair use rights.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

You said that you disagree with the EULA, but when you click on the little
button, you are agreeing to the EULA. That is why I said you were lying a
the time you clicked the button.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid.

The public has the CHOICE not to use the software. Microsoft is not forcing
anyone to use their software. An ethical person would abide by the EULA or
use some free software that has no EULA.

An unethical person keeps making excuses to steal.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

I am not aware of the lawsuit between the two.

However, even if MS is 100% guilty of it, the people who do it to MS are
still stealing, which is what this whole thread is about.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

Again, comparing apples to oranges. Stealing money is against the law. A
contract dispute is not against the law.

My comment was in response to you stating, "Not an applicable comparison.
TVs are a physical item. A license is not a physical item." You
conveniently snipped that before you replied. My point was that it does not
have to be a physical item in order for it to be stolen.

"Stealing money is against the law." Duh, but what you fail to comprehaend
is that the effect on the manufacturer of someone buying one license and
installing it ten times is the same as if that person had walked into a bank
(or hacked in electronically) and taken money out of the manufacturer's bank
account in an amount equal to nine licenses. To the manufacturer, it is
stealing the money that they had a right to earn for developing the
software.

And to say it one more time, it does not have to be against the law in order
for it to be unethical.

I "acknowledged" the EULA, but did not agree to it. I wish MS would
acknowledge fair use rights and not infringe on them.

And Microsoft wishes pirates would acknowledge that MS has the right to be
compensated for each license in use.

But it's still not a realistic comparison.

It was not a comparison. It was an example to show you that something can
still be unethical and wrong without a law stating it is so.





If one agrees to something, then reneges on that agreement, in my book, that
makes one a liar.

 

[Alias]

Wrong, you just took what I said to the extreme without trying to
understand what I said.

Went over your head, eh?

As a thief, and you say you are, I expected nothing less from you.

Um, I don't say I am a thief. I have never stolen anything in my life.
Where did you get that from?

Alias

 

[Alias]

Because what you "have" is ONE license for ONE computer. If you install it
on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you.
You do NOT "have" multiple licenses.

That's the EULA, not the law, saying that.

Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was
made about it being a single license.

If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a
license that does not belong to you.

No, I have used one license more than once that I paid for. There is no
"new" license.

It does not have to be a crime to be
stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone
else."

It has to exist doesn't it?

The additional installations you do on your other computers are
taking a license from Microsoft, because the ONE license you bought and now
"have" only covers ONE installation.

Not the law but the EULA.

Any installations beyond that ONE are
taking from Microsoft.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?

You do not "have" multiple licenses. You admited that
it would be a contract dispute. Why would it be? Duh, because YOU are
violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more
than one computer.

Which is not illegal or a crime where I live or don't you respect local
customs?

So, again, you are taking something that does not belong
to you.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?

You are stealing. And again, so you can comprehend the concept, it
does not have to be illegal, a crime, or whatever term you choose to give it
in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and stealing, regardless of where
you live.

That's your subjective opinion, not one shared by the Spanish judges.
Are your opinions above the law?

If Microsoft is not being paid each time that XP gets installed on
a separate computer, then it is not fair to them, and by definition is NOT
"fair use."

Not true.

Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.

Um, it's the *legal* interpretation.

Something that is "fair" has to benefit BOTH parties involved in order to
meet the definition of fairness, which software piracy (copying) does not
do.

MS got its money for the CD I bought. They should expect any more than that.

Once again, yes, you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to
you, by advocating that it is OK to install licenses which you do not
"have." What you "have" is a single license to use the software on ONE
computer. ANY use beyond that is taking "something that belongs to someone
else."

Gregg

You are really stretching it. This is commonly called "back pedaling".

Alias

 

[Alias]

When you advocate using the single license you purchased to install on
multiple computers, you have advocated stealing. You have been pushing that
attitude in your posts, screaming about your fair use rights.

Gregg

Um, that hasn't been established in a court of law and Microsoft is not
the Supreme Court of any country. Why hasn't Microsoft taken anyone to
court for that? Could it be that they are afraid that their "law" may be
struck down and that they will be forced to allow paying customers to do
what they want with things they buy in the privacy of their own home?

Alias

 

[Leythos]

Um, I don't say I am a thief. I have never stolen anything in my life.
Where did you get that from?

You said you believe in Fair Use and install licensed software on more
than one machine under Fair Use rules.

 

[Alias]

You said you believe in Fair Use and install licensed software on more
than one machine under Fair Use rules.

No, I didn't say I install software on more than one machine. I said
that fair use allows that, not that I do that.

Alias

 

[arachnid]

Thanks for the new sig!

 

[caver1]

I am not aware of the lawsuit between the two.

However, even if MS is 100% guilty of it, the people who do it to MS are
still stealing, which is what this whole thread is about.

Gregg

Then I suggest you do some research it is going before the Supreme
court. I agree no one can justify stealing but you cannot accuse someone
of stealing just because they disagree with you.
Basically MS is stating in their defense that Software should not be
patentable only copywriteble and that US copywrites should not be
enforced outside the US.

 

[caver1]

The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid.

The public has the CHOICE not to use the software. Microsoft is not forcing
anyone to use their software. An ethical person would abide by the EULA or
use some free software that has no EULA.

An unethical person keeps making excuses to steal.

Gregg

At the same time because some are pirates does not give anyone the right
for others to brand all who disagree as pirates or liars. Maybe some are
following what rules are in place but are trying to change them at the
same time. Innocent until proven guilty. You try to state that all are
guilty that do not agree with you.

 

[Alias]

At the same time because some are pirates does not give anyone the right
for others to brand all who disagree as pirates or liars. Maybe some are
following what rules are in place but are trying to change them at the
same time. Innocent until proven guilty. You try to state that all are
guilty that do not agree with you.

There was a pastor by the name of Ted Haggard who preached the same
things as our dear friend Gregg Hill. You saw what happened to him. What
are you hiding, Gregg?

Alias

 

[caver1]

The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid.

The public has the CHOICE not to use the software. Microsoft is not forcing
anyone to use their software. An ethical person would abide by the EULA or
use some free software that has no EULA.

An unethical person keeps making excuses to steal.

Gregg

Someone is caught stealing tv's the company that they stole them from
can have them arrested and tried in court. If found guilty then they can
be fined, put in jail or both. But the company cannot accuse everyone
who comes in their store of being a thief or enforcing the law against
those who are. Only public law enforcement and the courts can do that.

 

[Nina DiBoy]

When you advocate using the single license you purchased to install on
multiple computers, you have advocated stealing. You have been pushing that
attitude in your posts, screaming about your fair use rights.

Gregg

Post one example where I say "I advocate stealing."

 

[Nina DiBoy]

You said that you disagree with the EULA, but when you click on the little
button, you are agreeing to the EULA. That is why I said you were lying a
the time you clicked the button.

Gregg

How am I a liar if I haven't broken the EULA?

 

[Nina DiBoy]

The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid.

Never said it should.

The public has the CHOICE not to use the software. Microsoft is not forcing
anyone to use their software. An ethical person would abide by the EULA or
use some free software that has no EULA.

An unethical person keeps making excuses to steal.

Gregg

I don't steal. So what's your point?