G
Gregg Hill
Alias said:That's the EULA, not the law, saying that.
No, I have used one license more than once that I paid for. There is no
"new" license.
The financial effect on the manufacturer is the same. If you pay for one and
use four, it has the same financial impact on their bank account and yours.
They are out the price for three units, and you have gained the price of
three units by not having that amount taken from your account. You have
gained financially, negating your "fair use" claim.
It has to exist doesn't it?
Does the money in your bank account "exist" because a little magnetized
piece of material has created a positive charge on a piece of storage media
in the bank's computer somewhere? Your money in your bank account does not
"exist" any more than that license, but I'll bet you don't want the bank
saying you have no money!
Not the law but the EULA.
How can you take something that doesn't exist?
See the bank account example above.
Which is not illegal or a crime where I live or don't you respect local
customs?
Again, it does not have to be governed by law to be wrong.
How can you take something that doesn't exist?
That's your subjective opinion, not one shared by the Spanish judges. Are
your opinions above the law?
Judges in Afghanistan during Taliban rule did not think raping women and
beating them to death was wrong. So, in your logic, that makes that behavior
right. Bad argument on your part.
Law, or lack thereof, does not mean it is not right.
Not true.
Um, it's the *legal* interpretation.
See the comment about Afghanistan.
MS got its money for the CD I bought. They should expect any more than
that.
Yes, they got money for the first license you used, but not for any other
that you SHOULD have bought.