Windows Validation Required!

[kurttrail]

I didn't realize Kurt and I were fighting (did you Kurt?)... You
really need to get off the medicine and keep up with the conversation
before you make an idiot out of yourself again.

LOL! No, but you want to start one for Greg's sake? ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Ed,
Your and kurt need to take your fight the microsoft test group.

Wga is having problem on legit sytems by the way.

Yeah, and it is MS's fault. MS released a totally flawed useless piece
of sh*t on its paying customers, and if we actually had a gov't of the
people, by the people, for the people, MS would be under a federal
investigation for releasing this wga sh*t on the people!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Winux P]

Come on Kurttrail, large coporations no longer need to lobby governments as
they are now governments. People no longer see themselves as citizens of a
government but consumers. More people took interest in voting in American
Idol than in a US presidential election. Thus fight must take a new form, as
you've stated, hit them in the bottom line, and rip them off back.
Governments for the people went out the Windows (<-sorry) after Mr. Pr. R.
Nixon. (PM. M. Frazer for all you Aussies out there).

- Winux P

 

[Greg Ro]

Sorry ed & Kurt. I did not know you were joking with each other.


Greg R

 

[kurttrail]

Sorry ed & Kurt. I did not know you were joking with each other.


Greg R

Yeah, we were both making fun of BoobyI/Chester da Molester.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[johnsmith]

After about a bazillion updates.

This one is even funnier than all the hacks to IE. One would think that
the largest software company in the world would get it right earlier,
rather than later.

I understand that IBM is the largest software company. They make their money fixing Windows problems for corporate clients.

 

[bxf]

I'm having difficulty understanding all this anti-MS sentiment with
respect to PA, etc. I'm no MS fan, but I do recognize that everybody
has a right to protect their property. Perhaps MS is screwing up in its
attempts to reduce use of illegal software, but the need to do that is
a result of the widespread use of such illegal software. PA and WGA
would not be necessary otherwise.

To say that MS has made its billions, etc, and is therefore a
legitimate target, is pure crap. That is the sort of mentality that
enables thieves from poor backgrounds to justify stealing from
"average" people, as, in relative terms, average looks wealthy. There
is always someone worse off than you. Does that justify that person
stealing the rewards of your labour?

 

[Alias]

I'm having difficulty understanding all this anti-MS sentiment with
respect to PA, etc. I'm no MS fan, but I do recognize that everybody
has a right to protect their property. Perhaps MS is screwing up in its
attempts to reduce use of illegal software, but the need to do that is
a result of the widespread use of such illegal software. PA and WGA
would not be necessary otherwise.

Um, PA and WGA doesn't affect piracy on iota. In fact, piracy is up since
this PR folly.

To say that MS has made its billions, etc, and is therefore a
legitimate target, is pure crap. That is the sort of mentality that
enables thieves from poor backgrounds to justify stealing from
"average" people, as, in relative terms, average looks wealthy. There
is always someone worse off than you. Does that justify that person
stealing the rewards of your labour?

Um, MS made billions with 95, 98, Me, Nt and 2000 with no PA and no WGA and
piracy was less then. Can you connect the dots? MS sure can't.

The ONLY people affected by this folly are PAYING customers. The pirates
laugh at it.

Alias

 

[SP Goodman]

Because both PA and WGA are flawed and some legit XPs are being flagged as
illigitimate. Because MS assumes you're a pirate until you, if you're
lucky, prove otherwise. Not one pirate will be affected as the cracks come
out one or two days after MS "protects its interests". The ONLY people who
are affected are PAYING customers. Get it now?

This is what happens when Microsoft marketeers hang out too much with the
MPAA and RIAA, and begin to actually believe the inflated figures these two
dinosauric entities claim to be the "ravages of piracy", when in reality
such are more a result of "no new talent for years, and no new content."

 

[bxf]

This is what happens when Microsoft marketeers hang out too much with the
MPAA and RIAA, and begin to actually believe the inflated figures these two
dinosauric entities claim to be the "ravages of piracy"...

OK, I suppose I'm going OT here, but this touches one of my favourite
peeves. Piracy figures are alwaye quoted as if every purchase of a
pirated product represents a lost sale of the real article. Oh yeah, I
can just imagine all these people with fake Rolexes saying to
themselves "oh well, now that I can't buy my watch for $50 I think I'll
go and buy the real one for $5000".

This is bullshit logic for luxury items, but may have some validity
when it comes to software, as this is not normally out of the reach of
many people. So once again, I would say that even if MS's anti-piracy
actions are making things difficult for legitimate users, its desire to
protect its software is nevertheless understandable, and is only
necessitated by the presence of piracy.

 

[kurttrail]

I'm having difficulty understanding all this anti-MS sentiment with
respect to PA, etc. I'm no MS fan, but I do recognize that everybody
has a right to protect their property.

First misconception. Software is not property, it is copyright
material. If it were, in fact, property, then there would be not reason
at all to have copyright law.

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

So MS is due a fair return. And MS has been getting a fair return since
it came into being.

What PA does is make things that copyright law, and copyright precedent
don't make illegal and turns it into piracy, like "fair use."

MS has no right under the law to limit an individuals "fair use." MS
use PA to do just that.

Perhaps MS is screwing up in
its attempts to reduce use of illegal software, but the need to do
that is a result of the widespread use of such illegal software.

The piracy rate was higher in 1994 than before MS intoduced PA, and
since the introduction of PA the decline in the piracy rate has leveled
off. So PA technologies don't seem to work better than not having PA
technologies. Then add in the costs of R&D of PA technologies, compared
to the pittence in revenue they actually bring in, there doesn't seem to
be a logical reason to keep PA.

1.) The Piracy Rate stopped declining.
2.) PA costs more than it brings in.

So, if I were a stockholder, I'd want to stop the PA/WGA drain on my
dividends!

And all this time that MS's is bitching about piracy, it amassed one of
the largest liquid asset reserves ever seen. All on the back of paying
customers, who are also the only ones that are really impacted by
PA/WGA!

PA
and WGA would not be necessary otherwise.

It is unnecessary right now, if you look at it dispassionately, and
logically.

To say that MS has made its billions, etc, and is therefore a
legitimate target, is pure crap.

No, it's not. Paying Customers have been, and always will be paying for
piracy, both real and imagined. Then they got to pay for it a second
time with PA/WGA and the needless hassles they bring!

And do you know that the _NET_ margin on Windows before taxes is a
whopping 86%, with a markup percentage well above 400%?!

Please prove that MS has EVER been hurt by piracy!

That is the sort of mentality that
enables thieves from poor backgrounds to justify stealing from
"average" people, as, in relative terms, average looks wealthy.

No, it's not. That is just you confusing the issue with a piss-poor
analogy. No one is trying to condone criminal copyright infringement.
Criminal pirates should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, in
a REAL court of law.

There
is always someone worse off than you. Does that justify that person
stealing the rewards of your labour?

Who said anything about stealing? PA/WGA does nothing to prevent real
piracy! All PA/WGA does is f*#k up for paying customers, with
absolutely no benefit to those paying customers at all!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[bxf]

First misconception. Software is not property, it is copyright
material. If it were, in fact, property, then there would be not reason
at all to have copyright law.

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

So MS is due a fair return. And MS has been getting a fair return since
it came into being.

What PA does is make things that copyright law, and copyright precedent
don't make illegal and turns it into piracy, like "fair use."

You obviously have put more thought into this than I have. But, to
accept the idea that "MS has been getting fair return" and they should
be satisfied, is to accept the idea that any publication is fair game
once it reaches a certain level of sales. Where does one draw the line?
Granted, I am permitted to loan you my book, but I am not permitted to
make a COPY of the book and give it to you. How to apply this
distinction to the marketing of software is not so clear to me.
However, if we accept the restrictions implied by copyright for books,
why not for software?

MS has no right under the law to limit an individuals "fair use." MS
use PA to do just that.

How does "fair use" include making copies of the entire product (book)?

The piracy rate was higher in 1994 than before MS intoduced PA, and
since the introduction of PA the decline in the piracy rate has leveled
off. So PA technologies don't seem to work better than not having PA
technologies. Then add in the costs of R&D of PA technologies, compared
to the pittence in revenue they actually bring in, there doesn't seem to
be a logical reason to keep PA.

1.) The Piracy Rate stopped declining.
2.) PA costs more than it brings in.

So, if I were a stockholder, I'd want to stop the PA/WGA drain on my
dividends!

And all this time that MS's is bitching about piracy, it amassed one of
the largest liquid asset reserves ever seen. All on the back of paying
customers, who are also the only ones that are really impacted by
PA/WGA!


It is unnecessary right now, if you look at it dispassionately, and
logically.


No, it's not. Paying Customers have been, and always will be paying for
piracy, both real and imagined. Then they got to pay for it a second
time with PA/WGA and the needless hassles they bring!

I accept that a legitimate user of the software has a right to complain
about these protection features, due to inconvenience, as you say. I
don't accept a user of a pirated copy has a right to any opinions on
this subject.

And do you know that the _NET_ margin on Windows before taxes is a
whopping 86%, with a markup percentage well above 400%?!

I believe that there are many, many products whose selling price is
hundreds of percentage points above cost of manufacture. When a
clothing shop has a 50% off sale, they are still (often) selling at a
profit. In my view, this is nothing unusual.

Please prove that MS has EVER been hurt by piracy!

What, you don't think that there are at least SOME people who would
have bought MS software if a pirated version had not been available to
them? How much loss constitutes "hurt"?

No, it's not. That is just you confusing the issue with a piss-poor
analogy. No one is trying to condone criminal copyright infringement.
Criminal pirates should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, in
a REAL court of law.


Who said anything about stealing? PA/WGA does nothing to prevent real
piracy! All PA/WGA does is f*#k up for paying customers, with
absolutely no benefit to those paying customers at all!

OK, stealing is a vague term in this context. But if the use of pirated
software reduces sales of the real thing, then the "author" is deprived
of income, I still don't see how copying software is different from
copying books, etc.

 

[kurttrail]

You obviously have put more thought into this than I have. But, to
accept the idea that "MS has been getting fair return" and they should
be satisfied, is to accept the idea that any publication is fair game
once it reaches a certain level of sales. Where does one draw the
line?

Private non-commercial use.

No corporation has any legal or moral expectation to know what you do
with any copyrighted product in the privacy of your own home.

Granted, I am permitted to loan you my book, but I am not
permitted to make a COPY of the book and give it to you. How to apply
this distinction to the marketing of software is not so clear to me.
However, if we accept the restrictions implied by copyright for books,
why not for software?

Actually, are you permitted to loan your book to anyone else? The
Public Library is. I don't know it you really are.

And as for making copies of it, you could make a pdf of it for your own
use. When you start to distribute copies to other people, then you are
infringing on the copyright. And no one here is arguing for being able
to distribute copies to others.

How does "fair use" include making copies of the entire product
(book)?

For your own use, it is fine.

I accept that a legitimate user of the software has a right to
complain about these protection features, due to inconvenience, as
you say. I don't accept a user of a pirated copy has a right to any
opinions on this subject.

And how do you determine that in a free society? Through technologies,
or through the court system? If through technologies, then throw out
the Constitution and welcome in 1984, and Big Brother.

I believe that there are many, many products whose selling price is
hundreds of percentage points above cost of manufacture. When a
clothing shop has a 50% off sale, they are still (often) selling at a
profit. In my view, this is nothing unusual.

MS's Windows margins and markups are not unusual when compare to illegal
drugs, prostitution, and illegal gambling.

What, you don't think that there are at least SOME people who would
have bought MS software if a pirated version had not been available to
them?

LOL! The one that have been convicted and fined. I live in America
where supposed you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

How much loss constitutes "hurt"?

Prove a loss. Isn't MS insured against theft?

OK, stealing is a vague term in this context. But if the use of
pirated software reduces sales of the real thing, then the "author"
is deprived of income, I still don't see how copying software is
different from copying books, etc.

MS is not an author. It is the copyright owner. You can copy a book
for a "fair use." Just like you can copy your CDs to tape, or MP3s, or
to other CDs.

Making copies is not necessarily wrong, it is distributing copies to
others that is an infringement. What you do in your home with your
copies of copyrighted material is nobodies' business but yours, and
there is no law, or legal precedent that says otherwise.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Ed]

Sorry ed & Kurt.

You are most graciously welcome....

Regards,
Ed

 

[Greg Ro]

Making copies is not necessarily wrong, it is distributing copies to
others that is an infringement. What you do in your home with your
copies of copyrighted material is nobodies' business but yours, and
there is no law, or legal precedent that says otherwise.

Congress may change that rule
Aclu and EFF will challenge it in the courts

I never thought I would agree with Kurt. This part above do agree
with Kurt on.

Kurt, if you read the eula-It allows you to make one backup
I make more than one backup. I know it against the eula.
Cds can go bad and crash.

There is another place to blame. The distributors for selling their
windows software incorrectly to the retailers. If they sold it
correctly to being with. I don't think there would be WGA or
Activation.

Greg Ro

 

[bxf]

Private non-commercial use.

OK, but that does not include the (profitable) distribution of pirated
software.

No corporation has any legal or moral expectation to know what you do
with any copyrighted product in the privacy of your own home.

From this, I infer that you are opposed to the techniques MS is using

to uncover use of pirated software, and you may have a valid point.
This has no direct bearing on the question of whether or not pirated
software is in fact or should be considered illegal.

Actually, are you permitted to loan your book to anyone else? The
Public Library is. I don't know it you really are.

I believe it is entirely legal to loan books, and by inference, it
should be legal for me to loan you my Windows CD. BUT, you cannot make
a copy, in any form. So, does installing it constitute making a copy?
One could argue that technically the answer is 'no'.

And as for making copies of it, you could make a pdf of it for your own
use. When you start to distribute copies to other people, then you are
infringing on the copyright. And no one here is arguing for being able
to distribute copies to others.


For your own use, it is fine.

Can't argue with that.

And how do you determine that in a free society? Through technologies,
or through the court system? If through technologies, then throw out
the Constitution and welcome in 1984, and Big Brother.

Well, it is difficult, hence MS attempts to make the USE of illegal
copies difficult. Just like by putting an extra lock on your door you
will deter at least SOME potential thieves.

MS's Windows margins and markups are not unusual when compare to illegal
drugs, prostitution, and illegal gambling.

My impression is that many goods are sold at prices that are hundreds
of percent over actual production costs.

LOL! The one that have been convicted and fined. I live in America
where supposed you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I think you missed my point. I was simply saying that if I'm using some
pirated software that I really want or need, I'd buy a legitimate
version if the pirated version was not available. This, however, does
not change the fact that there may be much software that I'd use if it
was free or very cheap, but would not bother buying at a normal price.

Prove a loss. Isn't MS insured against theft?

Well, again, if I am using a pirated copy of something that I'd be
willing to buy at full price, then it is a loss to the producer.

MS is not an author. It is the copyright owner. You can copy a book
for a "fair use." Just like you can copy your CDs to tape, or MP3s, or
to other CDs.

I don't have a book on hand to confirm this, but I believe ANY copying
of a book is illegal. I am not aware of it being permissible to make a
copy of a book for any purpose. It is generally permitted to make
partial quotes, as in reviews or references, and that is all.

Making copies is not necessarily wrong, it is distributing copies to
others that is an infringement. What you do in your home with your
copies of copyrighted material is nobodies' business but yours, and
there is no law, or legal precedent that says otherwise.

OK, so we are not in any disagreement on this. But, if you asknowledge
that "it is distributing copies to others that is an infringement",
then how can you not agree that MS is justified in attempting to stop
this infringement? I am leaving aside the issue of whether the means
they are using are good. What would you do in MS' shoes?

 

[kurttrail]

OK, but that does not include the (profitable) distribution of pirated
software.

So? Who was talking about that?

to uncover use of pirated software, and you may have a valid point.
This has no direct bearing on the question of whether or not pirated
software is in fact or should be considered illegal.

It should be considered illegal when the piracy is proved in a court of
law. I live in America, where people used to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty by a jury of one's peers.

I believe it is entirely legal to loan books, and by inference, it
should be legal for me to loan you my Windows CD. BUT, you cannot make
a copy, in any form. So, does installing it constitute making a copy?
One could argue that technically the answer is 'no'.

Not an exact copy, anyway. As for "loaning," that concept has not been
clearly defined by law or legal precedent, except where public libraries
are concerned.

Can't argue with that.


Well, it is difficult, hence MS attempts to make the USE of illegal
copies difficult. Just like by putting an extra lock on your door you
will deter at least SOME potential thieves.

I control the locks on my door. MS controls locks on more than just my
copy of an OS. I have much more on my computer than MS software, as
most people do.

And PA is inconsistent, and buggy. If my door lock get that way, I
replace it. MS doesn't care about the consequences of it
copy-protection going awry. If MS was responsible for the bugs and
holes in its software, I could understand copyprotection, but MS's EULA
absolves MS of any responsibility when it comes to any defect in its
product. If MS doesn't have the balls to back up there product, then
they really shouldn't be trying to tell people how to use it.

My impression is that many goods are sold at prices that are hundreds
of percent over actual production costs.

Like? Pharmaceutical Drugs? Oil, if you count the corporate welfare?

I think you missed my point. I was simply saying that if I'm using
some pirated software that I really want or need, I'd buy a legitimate
version if the pirated version was not available. This, however, does
not change the fact that there may be much software that I'd use if it
was free or very cheap, but would not bother buying at a normal price.

And you are assuming it is pirated software, why? Because it fails MS's
bug-riddled piracy-checking? I'm sorry, but MS is the last company I'd
trust to validate legalities. That's what the courts are for.

Well, again, if I am using a pirated copy of something that I'd be
willing to buy at full price, then it is a loss to the producer.

You haven't proved an actual loss. You've stated a hypothetical
situation. Legally, MS with its piracy checks is taking alleged pirated
software and is punishing people, by denying activations, or locking
them out of updates, without legally proving anything at all. And when
you consider how buggy PA, and WGA actually are, it's a damned good
thing MS doesn't decide who should be put on death row.

I don't have a book on hand to confirm this, but I believe ANY copying
of a book is illegal.

Huh? Please show us the law or legal precedent. Any book I've bought,
I can make into a pdf for my own use.

I am not aware of it being permissible to make a
copy of a book for any purpose.

Not for any purpose, but I can make a copy of a book I've purchased for
my personal, private, non-commerial use. IOW, for a "fair use" in my
home.

It is generally permitted to make
partial quotes, as in reviews or references, and that is all.

That is for a "fair use" for public and/or commerical uses.

OK, so we are not in any disagreement on this. But, if you asknowledge
that "it is distributing copies to others that is an infringement",
then how can you not agree that MS is justified in attempting to stop
this infringement?

I believe MS is justified in pursuing actual proveable cases of piracy
in a court of law. I just will never find it right that they use
technological means to bypass the court system.

I am leaving aside the issue of whether the means
they are using are good.

Well that is exactly my issue, the means which MS uses.

What would you do in MS' shoes?

Sue.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Guest]

So what do we do then?

So? Who was talking about that?


It should be considered illegal when the piracy is proved in a court of
law. I live in America, where people used to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty by a jury of one's peers.


Not an exact copy, anyway. As for "loaning," that concept has not been
clearly defined by law or legal precedent, except where public libraries
are concerned.


I control the locks on my door. MS controls locks on more than just my
copy of an OS. I have much more on my computer than MS software, as
most people do.

And PA is inconsistent, and buggy. If my door lock get that way, I
replace it. MS doesn't care about the consequences of it
copy-protection going awry. If MS was responsible for the bugs and
holes in its software, I could understand copyprotection, but MS's EULA
absolves MS of any responsibility when it comes to any defect in its
product. If MS doesn't have the balls to back up there product, then
they really shouldn't be trying to tell people how to use it.


Like? Pharmaceutical Drugs? Oil, if you count the corporate welfare?


And you are assuming it is pirated software, why? Because it fails MS's
bug-riddled piracy-checking? I'm sorry, but MS is the last company I'd
trust to validate legalities. That's what the courts are for.


You haven't proved an actual loss. You've stated a hypothetical
situation. Legally, MS with its piracy checks is taking alleged pirated
software and is punishing people, by denying activations, or locking
them out of updates, without legally proving anything at all. And when
you consider how buggy PA, and WGA actually are, it's a damned good
thing MS doesn't decide who should be put on death row.


Huh? Please show us the law or legal precedent. Any book I've bought,
I can make into a pdf for my own use.


Not for any purpose, but I can make a copy of a book I've purchased for
my personal, private, non-commerial use. IOW, for a "fair use" in my
home.


That is for a "fair use" for public and/or commerical uses.


I believe MS is justified in pursuing actual proveable cases of piracy
in a court of law. I just will never find it right that they use
technological means to bypass the court system.


Well that is exactly my issue, the means which MS uses.


Sue.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"