N
Nina DiBoy
Gregg said:
Why should a company that is guilty of anti-trust violations and IP
theft tell me what I am and am not allowed to do in the privacy of my
own home?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Why should a company that is guilty of anti-trust violations and IP
theft tell me what I am and am not allowed to do in the privacy of my
own home?
N
Nina DiBoy
Gregg said: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.
This is correct. MS proves that with all of their IP theft.
"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
Who says I've done that?
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.
What is it called when one purchases an OS, installs it, then one of the
many peices of buggy DRM breaks and locks that person out of the OS?
And to say it one more time, it does not have to be against the law in order
for it to be unethical.
Noone is going to look out for me except me. Having the care to stand
up for my fair use rights is not unethical.
And Microsoft wishes pirates would acknowledge that MS has the right to be
compensated for each license in use.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
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.
This is not a discussion on ethics. This is a discussion on the EULA
If one agrees to something, then reneges on that agreement, in my book, that
makes one a liar.
So how does that make me a liar?
N
Nina DiBoy
Leythos said:You said you believe in Fair Use
So believing in fair use makes one a thief?
and install licensed software on more
than one machine under Fair Use rules.
What is wrong with installing *licensed* software on more than one machine?
N
Nina DiBoy
arachnid said:Thanks for the new sig!
LOL!
L
Leythos
So believing in fair use makes one a thief?
If you practice that belief, then YES. If you have the belief and don't
practice that belief, then you're trolling.
What is wrong with installing *licensed* software on more than one machine?
If you don't have the vendors required number of licenses to match the
number of installations, well, if you can't figure it out from here then
you're a lost cause.
C
caver1
Nina said:LOL!
But to have a fair system there has to be balanced. So the above sig is
true but at the same time the manufacturer's right to be paid should not
outweigh the public's right to fair use. So being that both are true
there has to be a meeting point in the middle not a total wiping out of
one side.
G
Gregg Hill
Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the EULA
and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are advocating
stealing.
Gregg Hill
and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are advocating
stealing.
Gregg Hill
G
Gregg Hill
No, I state that all who practice their belief and install one license on
multiple computers are stealing.
If they simply do not believe in it, but they still abide by the EULA,
that's fine.
Gregg
multiple computers are stealing.
If they simply do not believe in it, but they still abide by the EULA,
that's fine.
Gregg
N
Nina DiBoy
Gregg said:Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the EULA
and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are advocating
stealing.
Gregg Hill
Where is your example? When have I ever specifically said that it's OK
to "install ONE license on multiple computers"?
N
Nina DiBoy
Gregg said:No, I state that all who practice their belief and install one license on
multiple computers are stealing.
If they simply do not believe in it, but they still abide by the EULA,
that's fine.
Gregg
So where is your problem with me?
A
arachnid
But to have a fair system there has to be balanced. So the above sig is
true but at the same time the manufacturer's right to be paid should not
outweigh the public's right to fair use. So being that both are true there
has to be a meeting point in the middle not a total wiping out of one
side.
"Fair use" itself was *supposed* to balance the monopoly that Copyright
law grants to the copyright holder with a minimal set of rights guaranteed
for the end-user. Unfortunately, the copyright holders have found ways to
negate fair use, including buying favorable laws such as the DMCA, and
using entire armies of lawyers to bully helpless consumers.
However, occasionally they DO misjudge the helplessness of a victim:
: Judge orders RIAA to justify its piracy charges
:
: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35669
:
: A US COURT is forcing the Recording Industry of America to explain why
: it charges people it catches pirating $750 a single rather than the 70
: cents they flog them to retailers for.
:
: In the case UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has allowed Ms Lindor, who the
: RIAA claim is a pirate, to challenge the $750 a track it wants in
: damages.
This one case could put an end to the BSA/RIAA/MPAA bullying.
A
arachnid
Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the
EULA and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are
advocating stealing.
So you keep saying, but then when someone refutes your arguments you
run away without even trying to defend yourself. These are not the
actions of someone who believes what they say.
G
Gregg Hill
Alias,
I don't know who Mr. Haggard is, nor is his experience relevant to this
thread. I am not hiding anything. I never said that I have never broken a
law. I never claimed to be perfect or without sin. For the sake of this
thread, one could be a raping, bank-robbing, child-molesting ax murderer who
steals from old ladies, but the **points about theft would remain the
same.** I am just stating that anyone who uses the single license they
purchased to install XP on more than one computer is stealing. In order to
understand that, one must understand that the license is for installation on
one computer, per the manufacturer, who has every right to claim that fact.
Your local laws, or lack thereof, or your "fair use" laws (which are NOT, by
definition, fair to the manufacturer), do not change that fact.
Let me ask you about this scenario. Let's say that you live in a country
that has NO laws of any kind, perhaps your own island in the Pacific (hey,
one can dream!). Let's say that a Dell computer costs $1000 without any
software on it. If you ordered four of them from Dell and they were shipped
to your island, would you expect to pay Dell for each one, for a total of
$4000, or would you say you cannot afford it and you think it is unfair for
them to charge so much, so you are only going to pay for one of them, but
you will use all four, and my country allows me to do that? Likely, you
would agree that you should pay for all four. Four products, four payments
is the only "fair use" of the products, regardless of the profit margin Dell
has on each one. If you can only afford one or two, buy one or two. When you
can afford the other two, buy the other two.
Why is it that you and the others can somehow rationalize that since it is a
software license and is intangible, it is somehow OK that you do not pay for
a license for each one of those products in use on each of the pieces of
hardware you just bought? Most people's work is not quantifiable in tangible
product, but they expect to be paid nonetheless.
Is it because your hatred of Microsoft and Billy's billions of dollars has
somehow clouded the fact that whether it is hardware, software, or labor, it
is still an item deserving of compensation?
Is it because you CAN use one license to install on many computers without
being caught, that it somehow justifies it?
Heck, I think it is nauseating to have to pay $5000 for a powerful server,
but I do not expect Dell to ship me four for that price. One product
purchased, one payment. Four products used, four payments. Why is that such
a difficult concept to grasp?
If you are an employee and you work an eight hour day, does your employer
pay you for all eight, or just the first hour each day? I certainly hope the
employer pays for all eight, even if your work is not something that can be
physically measured. Most employers would think it fair to only pay you for
half those hours, because they know you are not working every single minute
you are at the job. Do you punch off the clock when you take a cigarette
break or a pee break? Do you stop the clock when you surf the Internet at
work? Do you stop the clock when there is no work for you to do for two
hours? I doubt it.
What possible justification can you have to think that Microsoft, in spite
of its billions of dollars, does not deserve to be paid for each of its
products in use, just as you expect to be paid for each of yours (your
time)?
I had a fellow consultant tell me, in response to my comment about him
giving multiple Office 2000 installations to his clients for free, "I have
paid Microsoft PLENTY of money over the last ten years, and they don't need
any more from me." I then asked him if he would continue to support his
clients if they said, "I have paid Joe PLENTY of money over the last ten
years, and he doesn't need any more." He said, "Of course not!" I asked what
is the difference, and he admitted that there was no difference. P.S. This
guy grosses over $15,000/month!
When the table is turned and it is YOU who does not get paid for each piece
of your work, whether that be a tangible item, or software you wrote, or
just your time entering data at a desk job, it becomes more apparent that
there absolutely is a financial impact, regardless of whether it is $100
from you or 1 billion dollars from Bill. If your employer paid you for one
hour each day that you worked eight hours, that would have the same effect
(as a percentage) on YOUR bank account as the ONE XP license installed on
eight computers has on Microsoft's bank account. You would both be getting
paid for 12.5% of your "product" (Bill's XP, your time). Just because ol'
Bill's bank account is a wee bit larger than yours or mine does not justify
taking his money by not paying for each product in use.
I would love to keep going with this thread, but I have spent hours typing
and it is obvious that no amount of reasoning will get you to see that by
not paying, you are taking money form Microsoft or anyone else. By not
paying for each installation, you have a financial gain, over-ruling the
"casual copying" you mentioned. I have three months of billing to catch up
on, so I have to bow out at this point.
You may enjoy having your way with my comments.
Gregg Hill
I don't know who Mr. Haggard is, nor is his experience relevant to this
thread. I am not hiding anything. I never said that I have never broken a
law. I never claimed to be perfect or without sin. For the sake of this
thread, one could be a raping, bank-robbing, child-molesting ax murderer who
steals from old ladies, but the **points about theft would remain the
same.** I am just stating that anyone who uses the single license they
purchased to install XP on more than one computer is stealing. In order to
understand that, one must understand that the license is for installation on
one computer, per the manufacturer, who has every right to claim that fact.
Your local laws, or lack thereof, or your "fair use" laws (which are NOT, by
definition, fair to the manufacturer), do not change that fact.
Let me ask you about this scenario. Let's say that you live in a country
that has NO laws of any kind, perhaps your own island in the Pacific (hey,
one can dream!). Let's say that a Dell computer costs $1000 without any
software on it. If you ordered four of them from Dell and they were shipped
to your island, would you expect to pay Dell for each one, for a total of
$4000, or would you say you cannot afford it and you think it is unfair for
them to charge so much, so you are only going to pay for one of them, but
you will use all four, and my country allows me to do that? Likely, you
would agree that you should pay for all four. Four products, four payments
is the only "fair use" of the products, regardless of the profit margin Dell
has on each one. If you can only afford one or two, buy one or two. When you
can afford the other two, buy the other two.
Why is it that you and the others can somehow rationalize that since it is a
software license and is intangible, it is somehow OK that you do not pay for
a license for each one of those products in use on each of the pieces of
hardware you just bought? Most people's work is not quantifiable in tangible
product, but they expect to be paid nonetheless.
Is it because your hatred of Microsoft and Billy's billions of dollars has
somehow clouded the fact that whether it is hardware, software, or labor, it
is still an item deserving of compensation?
Is it because you CAN use one license to install on many computers without
being caught, that it somehow justifies it?
Heck, I think it is nauseating to have to pay $5000 for a powerful server,
but I do not expect Dell to ship me four for that price. One product
purchased, one payment. Four products used, four payments. Why is that such
a difficult concept to grasp?
If you are an employee and you work an eight hour day, does your employer
pay you for all eight, or just the first hour each day? I certainly hope the
employer pays for all eight, even if your work is not something that can be
physically measured. Most employers would think it fair to only pay you for
half those hours, because they know you are not working every single minute
you are at the job. Do you punch off the clock when you take a cigarette
break or a pee break? Do you stop the clock when you surf the Internet at
work? Do you stop the clock when there is no work for you to do for two
hours? I doubt it.
What possible justification can you have to think that Microsoft, in spite
of its billions of dollars, does not deserve to be paid for each of its
products in use, just as you expect to be paid for each of yours (your
time)?
I had a fellow consultant tell me, in response to my comment about him
giving multiple Office 2000 installations to his clients for free, "I have
paid Microsoft PLENTY of money over the last ten years, and they don't need
any more from me." I then asked him if he would continue to support his
clients if they said, "I have paid Joe PLENTY of money over the last ten
years, and he doesn't need any more." He said, "Of course not!" I asked what
is the difference, and he admitted that there was no difference. P.S. This
guy grosses over $15,000/month!
When the table is turned and it is YOU who does not get paid for each piece
of your work, whether that be a tangible item, or software you wrote, or
just your time entering data at a desk job, it becomes more apparent that
there absolutely is a financial impact, regardless of whether it is $100
from you or 1 billion dollars from Bill. If your employer paid you for one
hour each day that you worked eight hours, that would have the same effect
(as a percentage) on YOUR bank account as the ONE XP license installed on
eight computers has on Microsoft's bank account. You would both be getting
paid for 12.5% of your "product" (Bill's XP, your time). Just because ol'
Bill's bank account is a wee bit larger than yours or mine does not justify
taking his money by not paying for each product in use.
I would love to keep going with this thread, but I have spent hours typing
and it is obvious that no amount of reasoning will get you to see that by
not paying, you are taking money form Microsoft or anyone else. By not
paying for each installation, you have a financial gain, over-ruling the
"casual copying" you mentioned. I have three months of billing to catch up
on, so I have to bow out at this point.
You may enjoy having your way with my comments.
Gregg Hill
G
Gregg Hill
I agree with you. But what is a "total wiping out" of one side?
I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.
Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.
Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.
We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.
If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.
Gregg Hill
I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.
Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.
Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.
We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.
If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.
Gregg Hill
G
Gregg Hill
Nina,
My problem with you started where you said, "What is wrong with installing
*licensed* software on more than one machine?" in your first post.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I took it to mean, in light of
the entire thread, that you meant, "What is wrong with installing ONE
*licensed* software product on more than one machine?" which is what this
thread is all about.
If that is not what you meant, then you have my sincere apologies for my
mistaken assumption.
Gregg Hill
My problem with you started where you said, "What is wrong with installing
*licensed* software on more than one machine?" in your first post.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I took it to mean, in light of
the entire thread, that you meant, "What is wrong with installing ONE
*licensed* software product on more than one machine?" which is what this
thread is all about.
If that is not what you meant, then you have my sincere apologies for my
mistaken assumption.
Gregg Hill
A
Alias
Gregg said:If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.
Gregg Hill
THAT is funny!
Alias
G
Gregg Hill
If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?
Gregg Hill
Gregg Hill
G
Gregg Hill
Nina DiBoy said:This is correct. MS proves that with all of their IP theft.
But that in no way justifies doing back to them. Two wrongs do not make a
right.
Who says I've done that?
I said "someone" does that. I did not say that YOU do that.
What is it called when one purchases an OS, installs it, then one of the
many peices of buggy DRM breaks and locks that person out of the OS?
Noone is going to look out for me except me. Having the care to stand up
for my fair use rights is not unethical.
Why is it "fair" for you or anyone else not to pay for each installation of
a product used, if you do in fact do use one license on more than one
computer?
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
I laughed out loud, thank you!
This is not a discussion on ethics. This is a discussion on the EULA
Oh, but it absolutely IS a discussion of ethics. You yourself claimed that
the EULA is unconscionable. All the anti-MS folks have said there is nothing
wrong with installing one license on multiple computers. Paying for one
product license and usin git multiple times is a matter of ethics, or more
correctly, a lack thereof.
So how does that make me a liar?
If you do it, it does, if you don't it does not. I thought you did. Sorry.
G
Gregg Hill
Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.
A
Alias
Gregg said:Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.
Everyone knows that, Gregg. We know all about the slight of hand that MS
uses to milk their customers for all they're worth. You don't get
obscenely rich by being a honest nice guy.
Like Nina, I too have one XP license per computer in two different
languages. This doesn't mean I like they idea. It only means that, like
you, we don't steal.
Alias