Activation code



Ben H
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
computer.
Is this correct?
Thanks




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

D@annyBoy
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
why would MS want to keep the activations codes, whatever they are ?

I heard MS distributing free burgers and coke
:-)


While sipping a glass of wine, I read that Ben H wrote in
news:JJEme.3009$Ri4.1166@newsfe4-win.ntli.net


>I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>computer.
> Is this correct?
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
> Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
No! You need to purchase a second license if you wish
to install Windows XP on a second computer.

It is clearly a violation of the EULA to install the same Windows XP
license on a second computer without removing Windows XP from
the original computer.

Please read the EULA by going to Start > Run and type: WINVER
and hit enter.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ben H" wrote:

| I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
| database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
| computer.
| Is this correct?
| Thanks

Harry Ohrn
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Yes the database is kept for 120 days. However that doesn't entitle you to
use the same license on multiple systems.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Ben H" <benh@spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
news:JJEme.3009$Ri4.1166@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>computer.
> Is this correct?
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
> Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Ben H wrote:

> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
> database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
> computer.
> Is this correct?
> Thanks

Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not
*supposed* to do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't
apply for fair use in the privacy of one's home.

Alias
>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
> Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

D@annyBoy
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
you referring to the hardware database?

While sipping a glass of wine, I read that Harry Ohrn wrote in
news:%237ach8RZFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl


> Yes the database is kept for 120 days. However that doesn't entitle you to use
> the same license on multiple systems.

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Ben H wrote:
> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
> database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
> computer.
> Is this correct?


If one has no integrity, it's technically doable, yes.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
There is no mention of "fair use in the privacy of one's home"
in the Windows XP End-User License Agreement. Please refrain
from encouraging others to violate the legal provisions of the
EULA.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" bogusly wrote:

| Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not
| *supposed* to do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't
| apply for fair use in the privacy of one's home.
|
| Alias

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Because I have a mind to slander someone, and the tools to do it (the
internet) does that make me morally correct in doing it?

You, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have been stealing software
for the past 15 years, know damn well that it's not right. Note that I have
said nothing about legality. I have just said it's not right!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Ben H" <benh@spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
news:JJEme.3009$Ri4.1166@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>computer.
> Is this correct?
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
> Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias wrote:
>
>
> Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not
> *supposed* to do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't
> apply for fair use in the privacy of one's home.
>


Actually, you've fallen for one of Kurt's biggest lies. The Microsoft
EULA in no way infringes upon one's "fair use" of the OS, as the term
"fair use" is defined by law.

Try reading something that Kurt wouldn't want you to see, the true,
legal definition of "fair use."

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Ben H wrote:
> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in
> their database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used
> on another computer.
> Is this correct?
> Thanks
>

"Finally, the Microsoft activation clearinghouse system will
automatically allow activation to occur over the Internet four times in
one year on substantially different hardware." -
http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/1/6/21654b16-6c81-4d96-9390-5203cd43d07d/WindowsProductActivationTechnicalMarketBulletin.doc

"The installation ID is the required activation data. The installation
ID is a code that is provided to Microsoft as part of activation, either
electronically, if activation occurs over the Internet, or verbally to a
customer service representative if activation occurs over the telephone.
The installation ID is made up of two components: the software's product
ID and a hardware hash value. The product ID is unique to that software
installation and is generated from the product key used during
installation. (For Windows XP SP1 and Office 2003 installations only,
the product key is also sent as part of activation in order to deter
product key cracks). The hardware hash value is a nonunique
representation of the PC on which the software was installed. It is
called a hash value because it has no direct correlation to the PC and
cannot be backward-calculated to the original value. When displayed to a
customer for a telephone activation, the Installation ID is displayed as
a 50-digit code (54 digits for Windows XP SP1 and Office 2003
activations)." - http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx

So you see, MS has NO IDEA AT ALL the difference between a computer that
has "substantially different hardware" and a totally different computer,
since they cannot backward calculate the hardware hash.

--
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"

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

> There is no mention of "fair use in the privacy of one's home"
> in the Windows XP End-User License Agreement.

I didn't say there was.

Please refrain
> from encouraging others to violate the legal provisions of the
> EULA.

LOL! Do your homework before you post, please.

Alias

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not
>> *supposed* to do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't
>> apply for fair use in the privacy of one's home.
>>
>
>
> Actually, you've fallen for one of Kurt's biggest lies. The
> Microsoft EULA in no way infringes upon one's "fair use" of the OS, as
> the term "fair use" is defined by law.
>
> Try reading something that Kurt wouldn't want you to see, the true,
> legal definition of "fair use."
>
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Being as MS hasn't taken anyone to court about it, this url is useless.
In Spain, the courts recently ruled that downloading music, dvds,
software, etc. using programs like eMule for home use is not illegal.
What do you think of that and how will you advise users in Spain who
post on this board?

Alias

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Ben H wrote:
>
>> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in
>> their database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used
>> on another computer.
>> Is this correct?
>
>
>
> If one has no integrity, it's technically doable, yes.

Forcing people to buy a copy of software for each computer used in the
privacy of their home shows a total lack of integrity and an
overabundance of greed.

Alias

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Unless you were the one who was selling said operating system!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:u18QshSZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Ben H wrote:
>>
>>> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>>> database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on
>>> another computer.
>>> Is this correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> If one has no integrity, it's technically doable, yes.
>
> Forcing people to buy a copy of software for each computer used in the
> privacy of their home shows a total lack of integrity and an overabundance
> of greed.
>
> Alias

D@annyBoy
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
especially the cost !!!

BUT if you only know the amount of effort put in to ensure the OS runs with
minimal bugs, then the price you pay for a legal copy is chicken feed




While sipping a glass of wine, I read that Alias wrote in
news:u18QshSZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl


> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Ben H wrote:
>>
>>> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>>> database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>>> computer.
>>> Is this correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> If one has no integrity, it's technically doable, yes.
>
> Forcing people to buy a copy of software for each computer used in the privacy
> of their home shows a total lack of integrity and an overabundance of greed.
>
> Alias

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias wrote:

>
>
> Being as MS hasn't taken anyone to court about it, this url is useless.


That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Is English a second language
for you? There's certainly no logic or connection between the two
portions of the sentence. Or are you trying to say that the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches all need Microsoft's
permission to enact law?


> In Spain, the courts recently ruled that downloading music, dvds,
> software, etc. using programs like eMule for home use is not illegal.


Irrelevant. We're not discussing Spanish courts' total disregard for
the intellectual property of others.


> What do you think of that


Nothing.

> and how will you advise users in Spain who
> post on this board?
>


I'd inform them that this is a newsgroup primarily intended for English
speakers, and therefore the residents of English-speaking countries, and
that they'd have better success getting their specific technical issues
properly addressed in one of the Spanish language groups.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

D@annyBoy
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
MS do not take violations of the EULA by consumers seriously, I guess
the real bucks come from the corporates

While sipping a glass of wine, I read that Alias wrote in
news:epx6GhSZFHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl


> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not *supposed*
>>> to do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't apply for fair
>>> use in the privacy of one's home.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, you've fallen for one of Kurt's biggest lies. The Microsoft EULA
>> in no way infringes upon one's "fair use" of the OS, as the term "fair use"
>> is defined by law.
>>
>> Try reading something that Kurt wouldn't want you to see, the true, legal
>> definition of "fair use."
>>
>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
>
> Being as MS hasn't taken anyone to court about it, this url is useless. In
> Spain, the courts recently ruled that downloading music, dvds, software, etc.
> using programs like eMule for home use is not illegal. What do you think of
> that and how will you advise users in Spain who post on this board?
>
> Alias

D@annyBoy
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
if you remove the copy from the original computer, you can install the OS in
another computer (depending on the version, OEM excluded)

While sipping a glass of wine, I read that Alias wrote in
news:eLo64$RZFHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl


> Ben H wrote:
>
>> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>> database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>> computer.
>> Is this correct?
>> Thanks
>
> Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not *supposed* to
> do that, according to the EULA which, of course, doesn't apply for fair use in
> the privacy of one's home.
>
> Alias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
>> Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>

Ben H
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
I'm sorry I asked !

Ben H
:)
"Ben H" <benh@spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
news:JJEme.3009$Ri4.1166@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>computer.
> Is this correct?
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
> Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
Tested on: 31/05/2005 16:26:26
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

> No! You need to purchase a second license if you wish
> to install Windows XP on a second computer.
>
> It is clearly a violation of the EULA to install the same Windows XP
> license on a second computer without removing Windows XP from
> the original computer.
>
> Please read the EULA by going to Start > Run and type: WINVER
> and hit enter.
>

You then must click on the End User License Agreement link.

Less steps to go to Start, Run type in EULA.TXT and hit Enter.

Steve

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Being as MS hasn't taken anyone to court about it, this url is useless.
>
>
>
> That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Is English a second
> language for you? There's certainly no logic or connection between the
> two portions of the sentence. Or are you trying to say that the
> legislative, executive, and judicial branches all need Microsoft's
> permission to enact law?

MS says you can't do it. MS has yet to take anyone to court to enforce
their EULA. Get it now?
>
>
>> In Spain, the courts recently ruled that downloading music, dvds,
>> software, etc. using programs like eMule for home use is not illegal.
>
>
>
> Irrelevant. We're not discussing Spanish courts' total disregard
> for the intellectual property of others.

I am. It was taken to court here and MS LOST.
>
>
>> What do you think of that
>
>
>
> Nothing.

You just said think that the Spanish courts have a "total disregard for
the intellectual property of others" or did you copy and paste that
without thinking?
>
>> and how will you advise users in Spain who post on this board?
>>
>
>
> I'd inform them that this is a newsgroup primarily intended for
> English speakers, and therefore the residents of English-speaking
> countries, and that they'd have better success getting their specific
> technical issues properly addressed in one of the Spanish language groups.

I'm a native English speaker. I live in Spain, as to hundreds of
thousands of other native English speakers. I use an English Windows XP
Pro. This is an international newsgroup.

Alias

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
I'm sorry the "trolls" jumped in on this thread.
Their primary purpose is to spew misleading
and dishonest information and twist the facts
to confuse law-biding folks as yourself.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ben H" wrote:

| I'm sorry I asked !
|
| Ben H
| :)

bonio
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> No! You need to purchase a second license if you wish
> to install Windows XP on a second computer.
>
> It is clearly a violation of the EULA to install the same Windows XP
> license on a second computer without removing Windows XP from
> the original computer.
>
> Please read the EULA by going to Start > Run and type: WINVER
> and hit enter.
>

Ah, f**k off Frisch, you miserable sycophant!

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> There is no mention of "fair use in the privacy of one's home"
> in the Windows XP End-User License Agreement. Please refrain
> from encouraging others to violate the legal provisions of the
> EULA.

Exactly! MS is using its EULA terms to stop "fair use" by trying to
limit an individual from installing and using XP on more than one
computer.

--
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"

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias wrote:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>

>>
>> That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Is English a second
>> language for you? There's certainly no logic or connection between
>> the two portions of the sentence. Or are you trying to say that the
>> legislative, executive, and judicial branches all need Microsoft's
>> permission to enact law?
>
>
> MS says you can't do it. MS has yet to take anyone to court to enforce
> their EULA. Get it now?
>

No. You're still not talking sense. It's as if we're discussing two
completely separate and unrelated subjects, with me being the one
sticking to the topic of the thread. But I'll join your digression for
a moment - Why should Microsoft need to take anyone to court to
establish something that's already been upheld in Federal Court? See
Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html. EULAs have been
found to be legally binding contracts, until proven otherwise. Name a
relevant American case where Microsoft's EULA has been found to be
invalid. You can't, can you?


>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant. We're not discussing Spanish courts' total disregard
>> for the intellectual property of others.
>
>
> I am.


Ah, using the same, worn out tactic of changing the subject as Kurt.
If it doesn't work for him, why would you think it would work for you?



>
>
> You just said think that the Spanish courts have a "total disregard for
> the intellectual property of others" or did you copy and paste that
> without thinking?
>
>


By "nothing," I meant that I give no weight or value to the statement.
But I can see how this might have confused you. I'll try to keep
things simpler or clearer in the future.



>>
>> I'd inform them that this is a newsgroup primarily intended for
>> English speakers, and therefore the residents of English-speaking
>> countries, and that they'd have better success getting their specific
>> technical issues properly addressed in one of the Spanish language
>> groups.
>
>
> I'm a native English speaker.


No offense intended, but it certainly doesn't seem so, at times.


> I live in Spain, as to hundreds of
> thousands of other native English speakers.


I'm tempted to ask why, but it's your decision, and none of my business.


> I use an English Windows XP
> Pro.


That seems counter-productive. If your going to adopt the mores of the
culture in which you choose to live, wouldn't it make more sense to also
use its language? Seems like you'd miss out on a lot by keeping
yourself isolated from your adopted culture.


> This is an international newsgroup.
>
>


True, but, as I said, intended for English speaking nations, and their
citizens.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is, you *can* install it on another machine. You're not
>> *supposed* to do that, according to the EULA which, of course,
>> doesn't apply for fair use in the privacy of one's home.
>>
>
>
> Actually, you've fallen for one of Kurt's biggest lies. The Microsoft
> EULA in no way infringes upon one's "fair use" of the OS, as the term
> "fair use" is defined by law.
>
> Try reading something that Kurt wouldn't want you to see, the true,
> legal definition of "fair use."
>
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

F*^K you Bruce. I just used that site in a reply to you before reading
your post here in this thread!

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/4cf8971dae3f6620/368f7c1ab4daaf92
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/dd9de4fc1d75f061/a5494728e0a4b473
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/612ea621d5481b41/118c02ce14f295f4
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/18b1de6c588d39a4/76e34f3e3f480fda
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/554ac683ad8763b7/a929993250639979

And here is the Google Archive of past times where I responded to the
use of the Stanford Fair Use site by YOU or brought it up to you myself!

And I bet like these past instances, you won't respond to me in the "ok,
let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?"
either.

--
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"

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Ben H wrote:

> I'm sorry I asked !
>
> Ben H
> :)

LOL!

Welcome to the never ending EULA vs. Copyright law debate.

Steve

> "Ben H" <benh@spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
> news:JJEme.3009$Ri4.1166@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
>>I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in their
>>database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on another
>>computer.
>>Is this correct?
>>Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
>>Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
>>Tested on: 31/05/2005 14:40:53
>>avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
>>http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound Guaranteed Virus free.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0521-5, 29/05/2005
> Tested on: 31/05/2005 16:26:26
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Is English a second
>>> language for you? There's certainly no logic or connection between
>>> the two portions of the sentence. Or are you trying to say that the
>>> legislative, executive, and judicial branches all need Microsoft's
>>> permission to enact law?
>>
>>
>> MS says you can't do it. MS has yet to take anyone to court to
>> enforce their EULA. Get it now?
>>
>
> No. You're still not talking sense. It's as if we're discussing two
> completely separate and unrelated subjects, with me being the one
> sticking to the topic of the thread. But I'll join your digression
> for a moment - Why should Microsoft need to take anyone to court to
> establish something that's already been upheld in Federal Court?

Show us a case where a shrink-wrap licensed copy of COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
has been upheld OVER COPYRIGHT LAW!

> See
> Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,
> http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html. EULAs have
> been found to be legally binding contracts, until proven otherwise.

That was a case of the commercial use and resale of a commercial
database! Has absolutely nothing to do with the private non-commercial
use of post-sale shrink-wrapped licensed copyrighted material by an
individual!

A database is NOT copyrighted material!
Zeidenberg copied the database, repackaged the database at a cut-rate
price for sale to others.

If you read further in the Appellate court opinion, you would have read:

"Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses"
(which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a
subject for another day."

ROFL! So you see, Zeidenberg had nothing to do with COPYRIGHTED
MATERIAL, FAIR USE, COPYRIGHT LAW when it comes to the enforceability of
commercial use post-sale license terms on private, non-commercial
individuals!

> Name a relevant American case where Microsoft's EULA has been found
> to be invalid. You can't, can you?

Nope. Because MS has yet to sue an private non-commercial individual
for breech of EULA in over 13 years since MS first introduced their One
Computer EULA term.

And that clearly demonstrates that MS has no intention of exercising its
due diligence responsibility to legally enforce its contractual terms,
in spite of MS knowing that individuals have breech the One Computer
EULA term!

This is valid justification for a judge to summarily dismiss a case of
breech of contract brought by MS against an individual if MS ever grows
the balls in the future!

>>> Irrelevant. We're not discussing Spanish courts' total
>>> disregard for the intellectual property of others.
>>
>>
>> I am.
>
>
> Ah, using the same, worn out tactic of changing the subject as Kurt.
> If it doesn't work for him, why would you think it would work for you?

Huh? He didn't change the subject at all. Why in the world would he be
arguing about laws and court rulings in a country he doesn't live in?

It is you changing the subject by bringing me into this!

>> You just said think that the Spanish courts have a "total disregard
>> for the intellectual property of others" or did you copy and paste
>> that without thinking?
>
> By "nothing," I meant that I give no weight or value to the statement.
> But I can see how this might have confused you. I'll try to keep
> things simpler or clearer in the future.
>
>>> I'd inform them that this is a newsgroup primarily intended for
>>> English speakers, and therefore the residents of English-speaking
>>> countries, and that they'd have better success getting their
>>> specific technical issues properly addressed in one of the Spanish
>>> language groups.
>>
>>
>> I'm a native English speaker.
>
> No offense intended, but it certainly doesn't seem so, at times.
>

Why? Because he doesn't believe you bullsh*t!

<Snipped the rest>

--
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
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> I'm sorry the "trolls" jumped in on this thread.
> Their primary purpose is to spew misleading
> and dishonest information and twist the facts
> to confuse law-biding folks as yourself.

No you are just sorry, as you answer never directly addressed the OP's
question!

"I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in
their
database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be used on
another
computer. Is this correct?" - OP

"No! You need to purchase a second license if you wish to install
Windows XP on a second computer." - Fairy Frisch

See! The PK can be used to install on another computer, IN REALITY!
Hell, IN REALITY, the PK can be use on another computer before the 120
period, by doing a phone activation!

But you MicroTrolls never answer about REALITY, only about what happens
in the MicroUniverse!

--
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
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
> Unless you were the one who was selling said operating system!

Only if you also believe that "fair use" is copyright piracy.

--
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
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
D@annyBoy wrote:
> especially the cost !!!
>
> BUT if you only know the amount of effort put in to ensure the OS
> runs with minimal bugs, then the price you pay for a legal copy is
> chicken feed

And if you knew the net profit margin, you'd see that MS charges much
more than the fair return it is owed for the creative labor of its
employees.

"Microsoft's 86% Windows profit margin draws criticism from consumer
groups" - http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu

"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

--
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"

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
So in effect you are saying Kurt, that if you were in Bill Gates
(Microsoft's) shoes, you would spend countless millions of dollars to
develop an operating system. Then you would press 1 (one) CD, put it out on
the street and allow everyone and anyone to copy that one CD to pass it
around. And you would do this and not be upset because you are not bringing
in any money.

Are you a bovine that eats grass for food and sleeps in a pasture. You had
better be because you will not make any money!

I, for one, wish that Microsoft "would" make a test case. Hell, if I knew it
would work I would even install a copy of pirated software on my system and
send them the proof! The fact is, they are banking on the concept that the
majority of people TRY to be honest - a concept you seem to have problems
with!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eBYNDfTZFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> Unless you were the one who was selling said operating system!
>
> Only if you also believe that "fair use" is copyright piracy.
>
> --
> 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
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
> So in effect you are saying Kurt, that if you were in Bill Gates
> (Microsoft's) shoes, you would spend countless millions of dollars to
> develop an operating system. Then you would press 1 (one) CD, put it
> out on the street and allow everyone and anyone to copy that one CD
> to pass it around. And you would do this and not be upset because you
> are not bringing in any money.

That is not a "fair use" and you SHOULD know that after all this time.

I don't advocate that people should share copyrighted material with
others!

I would press one CD for each household. Businesses would have to
follow commercial use terms.

>
> Are you a bovine that eats grass for food and sleeps in a pasture.
> You had better be because you will not make any money!
>
> I, for one, wish that Microsoft "would" make a test case. Hell, if I
> knew it would work I would even install a copy of pirated software on
> my system and send them the proof! The fact is, they are banking on
> the concept that the majority of people TRY to be honest - a concept
> you seem to have problems with!

"Fair Use" is honest and LEGAL!

From the Supreme Court's betamax decision:

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

If they wanted to limit that statement to only the timeshifting issue of
the betamax case the wouldn't have use the generic term of "copyrighted
work." Instead it was part of their rationale of why a videotape
recorder wasn't a violation of copyright law.

MS doesn't possess the right to limit my "fair use." No Copyright Owner
does according to the Supreme Court!

--
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
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Steve N. wrote:
> Ben H wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry I asked !
>>
>> Ben H
>> :)
>
> LOL!
>
> Welcome to the never ending EULA vs. Copyright law debate.

This is the song that never ends.
It just goes on and on my friends.
Somebody started singing it not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue singing it forever just because,

(start at top again, & again, & again, & again . . . . )

--
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"

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
One per household goes too far. I can certainly agree that maybe you should
be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers (but that is
Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine). But one per household?
Hell, I know of one family that has about 15 computers between 4 different
places of residence. I maintain these computers, or at least a good number
of them. Does your concept extend that far, just because they are brothers
and sisters? When does it stop?

A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack of gum.
What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad, because even at
that young age he knows that you have to buy things. You just can't take
them. And, unless Microsoft allows it - you are "taking" it.

Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves! I don't know. But
I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any other software) they
sell, "they have the legal right to charge for it"! They also have the
"legal" right to charge what the market will bear! And they certainly have
the legal right to maximize profits for their stock holders.

Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user to
subsidize Microsoft by buying their software. There are many who would build
them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux installed - including me!
But wow, that takes a bit of work to find someone who will do this! So they
buy a Dell and complain afterwards that the O/S was forced upon them.
Hogwash I say!

I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the world of
growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates thievery. And until
Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!


--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uaRRA1TZFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> So in effect you are saying Kurt, that if you were in Bill Gates
>> (Microsoft's) shoes, you would spend countless millions of dollars to
>> develop an operating system. Then you would press 1 (one) CD, put it
>> out on the street and allow everyone and anyone to copy that one CD
>> to pass it around. And you would do this and not be upset because you
>> are not bringing in any money.
>
> That is not a "fair use" and you SHOULD know that after all this time.
>
> I don't advocate that people should share copyrighted material with
> others!
>
> I would press one CD for each household. Businesses would have to follow
> commercial use terms.
>
>>
>> Are you a bovine that eats grass for food and sleeps in a pasture.
>> You had better be because you will not make any money!
>>
>> I, for one, wish that Microsoft "would" make a test case. Hell, if I
>> knew it would work I would even install a copy of pirated software on
>> my system and send them the proof! The fact is, they are banking on
>> the concept that the majority of people TRY to be honest - a concept
>> you seem to have problems with!
>
> "Fair Use" is honest and LEGAL!
>
> From the Supreme Court's betamax decision:
>
> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
> copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
>
> If they wanted to limit that statement to only the timeshifting issue of
> the betamax case the wouldn't have use the generic term of "copyrighted
> work." Instead it was part of their rationale of why a videotape recorder
> wasn't a violation of copyright law.
>
> MS doesn't possess the right to limit my "fair use." No Copyright Owner
> does according to the Supreme Court!
>
> --
> 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"
>

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>
>> I use an English Windows XP Pro.
>
>
>
> That seems counter-productive. If your going to adopt the mores of
> the culture in which you choose to live, wouldn't it make more sense to
> also use its language? Seems like you'd miss out on a lot by keeping
> yourself isolated from your adopted culture.

I have three machines, Home Spanish, Pro Spanish and Pro English. I have
the two pros hooked up to the same mouse, keyboard and monitor. My
keyboard is Spanish but set to change from one language to another. Who
says I adopted the Spanish culture? You have no idea how I live.
>
>
>> This is an international newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
>
> True, but, as I said, intended for English speaking nations, and
> their citizens.

Nations and citizens? So ex pats are banned, according to you? How
cyberlyxenophobic and nationalistic of you.

Heh.

Alias, thinking that one of the benefits of the Internet is the
intermingling of cultures ...

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
And until
> Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!

And it's rampant. From XP on down, MS' OSs were casually copied. Office
too. Installed by white box people on new computers, etc. Even so, Billy
is not bovine or eating grass but quickly becoming the first
trillionaire in the world.

Alias

Scott
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
I agree on the one copy per household Kurt. But further to this
copyright BS. If it is illegal to copy software, then why are
companies such as Sony to name one, allowed to legally sell machines
such as: DVD, CD burners. DVD copy/players for your living room, PVR
machines for tv signals...all of these are copyrighted, and yet the
machines exist....On the one hand every company whines about pirates,
and on the other they produce and sell machines for that purpose...Go
figure!
On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:30:14 -0400, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

>Richard Urban wrote:
>> So in effect you are saying Kurt, that if you were in Bill Gates
>> (Microsoft's) shoes, you would spend countless millions of dollars to
>> develop an operating system. Then you would press 1 (one) CD, put it
>> out on the street and allow everyone and anyone to copy that one CD
>> to pass it around. And you would do this and not be upset because you
>> are not bringing in any money.
>
>That is not a "fair use" and you SHOULD know that after all this time.
>
>I don't advocate that people should share copyrighted material with
>others!
>
>I would press one CD for each household. Businesses would have to
>follow commercial use terms.
>
>>
>> Are you a bovine that eats grass for food and sleeps in a pasture.
>> You had better be because you will not make any money!
>>
>> I, for one, wish that Microsoft "would" make a test case. Hell, if I
>> knew it would work I would even install a copy of pirated software on
>> my system and send them the proof! The fact is, they are banking on
>> the concept that the majority of people TRY to be honest - a concept
>> you seem to have problems with!
>
>"Fair Use" is honest and LEGAL!
>
>From the Supreme Court's betamax decision:
>
>"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
>copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
>
>If they wanted to limit that statement to only the timeshifting issue of
>the betamax case the wouldn't have use the generic term of "copyrighted
>work." Instead it was part of their rationale of why a videotape
>recorder wasn't a violation of copyright law.
>
>MS doesn't possess the right to limit my "fair use." No Copyright Owner
>does according to the Supreme Court!

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Ben H wrote:
>> I have read somewhere that Microsoft only keep activation codes in
>> their database for 120 days. After that a CD product key can be
>> used on another computer.
>> Is this correct?
>> Thanks
>>

Windows Product Activation [WPA] was put in Windows to prevent casual
copying by the home and small business user. It is not meant to thwart the
dedicated pirates, just the casual pirates. The dedicated pirates don't deal
with WPA, they deal with the police. Microsoft, like any other company, has
the right to protect its intellectual property. Now with WPA, you don't need
to activate a retail copy for thirty days and it resets after 120 days, so
you can't say Microsoft isn't trying to be generous vis a vis the tinkerer.

I can only advise you to pay Microsoft some money for every copy of Windows
you use on a distinct computer.

People [and by extension companies] who write software should be compensated
for their efforts, it's fair.

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
>> Because I have a mind to slander someone, and the tools to do it (the
>> internet) does that make me morally correct in doing it?
>>
>> You, and the hundreds of thousands of people who have been stealing
>> software for the past 15 years, know damn well that it's not right.
>> Note that I have said nothing about legality. I have just said it's
>> not right!
>>

Software is rarely stolen. What you are likely referring to are copyright
offences - but it is not stealing.

D@annyBoy
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Is that net or gross profit?

I wonder what's are the cost involved in sending the CDs to beta testers,
maintaining the servers for testers?

After sales service? Maintaining a team to iron out the bugs and providing
service packs to legal and illegal users?

I do shared the opinion that the OS is too expensive for many users all over the
world, and MS's effort to provide a lean WinXP cheaply is a lame excuse.
Nevertheless, consumers do have a choice.


While sipping a glass of wine, I read that kurttrail wrote in
news:et3iYhTZFHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl


> D@annyBoy wrote:
>> especially the cost !!!
>>
>> BUT if you only know the amount of effort put in to ensure the OS
>> runs with minimal bugs, then the price you pay for a legal copy is
>> chicken feed
>
> And if you knew the net profit margin, you'd see that MS charges much more
> than the fair return it is owed for the creative labor of its employees.
>
> "Microsoft's 86% Windows profit margin draws criticism from consumer groups" -
> http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu
>
> "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

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Alias wrote:
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>> And until
>>> Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!
>>
>> And it's rampant. From XP on down, MS' OSs were casually copied.
>> Office too. Installed by white box people on new computers, etc.
>> Even so, Billy is not bovine or eating grass but quickly becoming
>> the first trillionaire in the world.
>>
>> Alias

Yes, that one could casually copy Windows through to Win2000 is part of the
reason for Microsoft's success. It ended up EVERYWHERE almost literally.
Heck, I went to one church a few months ago and they had a big vid screen
over the altar, or whatever they had up front, running on Windows XP.

I used to joke that Microsoft wanted to introduce Microsoft operating system
software into the religious experience - I never thought I'd actually see
it!

But Windows is what people want. If that's what they want, great - it's a
free country. Linux, in my opinion, sucks. Apples bother me. But I like
Windows on the x86/64.

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
> One per household goes too far.

So you'd give MS the right to invade the sanctity and privacy of your
home?! If you read the Sunday Newpaper, do you let your wife read it
when you are done, or do you make her buy her own copy? Doesn't the
newpaper have the right to sell your household two copies of the paper?

At $1.50 a paper, the newpaper company is living more on the edge of
disaster than MS!

How about DVDs! Do you buy a copy for each household member in your
home that is gonna view it?

And what about music CDs?

Why do you think software is any different than the other kinds of
copyrighted material?

> I can certainly agree that maybe you
> should be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers
> (but that is Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine).

LOL! No its not. MS has no right to know what I do with my copies of
software in my home. There is no legal precedent for that! Under "fair
use" the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to limit my use.

> But
> one per household? Hell, I know of one family that has about 15
> computers between 4 different places of residence. I maintain these
> computers, or at least a good number of them. Does your concept
> extend that far, just because they are brothers and sisters? When
> does it stop?

It extends to the household of the head of family of each household.

But that is a very rare situation. Most people are lucky enough to own
one home.

>
> A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack of
> gum. What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad, because
> even at that young age he knows that you have to buy things. You just
> can't take them. And, unless Microsoft allows it - you are "taking"
> it.

If I shoplift a copy of software from a store, I've committed a crime
theft of PROPERTY! If I get away with the shoplifting, who does the
insurance company reimburse? The store owner or the copyright owner of
that copy of software that was shoplifted?

Now I pay for a Music CD, bring it home, and make a copy for my use in
my family car. Is there a theft under the law? If you answer yes, then
you better be prepared to back that up with someone that has been
convicted of theft for doing that?

>
> Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves!

Predatory monopolists, and Patent & Copyright Infringers!

> I don't
> know.

I do. MS is the one that is a proven infringer, not one of its
customers has ever been found guilty of infringement or breech of
contract for installing XP on more than one computer for their private
non-commercial use. And before that day ever comes where that happens,
it will be a cold day in hell, or the day when MS buys out the
government!

> But I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any
> other software) they sell, "they have the legal right to charge for
> it"!

I never said they didn't. But that doesn't give them the right to know
what I do with it after I bring it home, let alone dictate the terms of
use in my home!

> They also have the "legal" right to charge what the market will
> bear! And they certainly have the legal right to maximize profits for
> their stock holders.

A market they monopolize. Believe me, MS is charging more than they
deserve for Win XP.

"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

MS only has the expectation to receive a fair return from the creative
labor of its employees, since copyright is bestowed to benefit society
as a whole, not to the sole benefit of the copyright owner.

> Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user to
> subsidize Microsoft by buying their software.

LOL! It is still mostly a server OS, and I have yet to find a distro
that will run at all on my multimedia computer.

My choice is to run a MS OS or to let my computer system, including
software to collect dust.

My system cost me thousands of dollars, to by a comparable Mac with
comparable software would cost me $3,000 to $4,000 minimum!

> There are many who
> would build them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux
> installed - including me!

Why should I have to buy a new system to run another OS? My computer is
better than what I get built from anyone else.

> But wow, that takes a bit of work to find
> someone who will do this! So they buy a Dell and complain afterwards
> that the O/S was forced upon them. Hogwash I say!

I built my own, over years! I can't afford to start from scratch just
to run a different OS!

> I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the
> world of growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates thievery.
> And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!

And you are being just being a scumbag, and that is what you're brats
are going to grow up into.

It is not theivery! Can you show us ONE PERSON that has ever been
convicted of THEFT for installing the same software on more than one
computer for the private non-commercial use in their home?

If you can't then your fallacious accusation is just bearing false
witness! Lying! And what kind of brats does a LIAR turn out! HUH?!

So shove that in your effin' pipe, and smoke it out of your A**HOLE!
:-p

--
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"

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
I see you're on the good stuff today. Congrats!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:OiO41DXZFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> One per household goes too far.
>
> So you'd give MS the right to invade the sanctity and privacy of your
> home?! If you read the Sunday Newpaper, do you let your wife read it when
> you are done, or do you make her buy her own copy? Doesn't the newpaper
> have the right to sell your household two copies of the paper?
>
> At $1.50 a paper, the newpaper company is living more on the edge of
> disaster than MS!
>
> How about DVDs! Do you buy a copy for each household member in your home
> that is gonna view it?
>
> And what about music CDs?
>
> Why do you think software is any different than the other kinds of
> copyrighted material?
>
>> I can certainly agree that maybe you
>> should be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers
>> (but that is Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine).
>
> LOL! No its not. MS has no right to know what I do with my copies of
> software in my home. There is no legal precedent for that! Under "fair
> use" the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to limit my use.
>
>> But
>> one per household? Hell, I know of one family that has about 15
>> computers between 4 different places of residence. I maintain these
>> computers, or at least a good number of them. Does your concept
>> extend that far, just because they are brothers and sisters? When
>> does it stop?
>
> It extends to the household of the head of family of each household.
>
> But that is a very rare situation. Most people are lucky enough to own
> one home.
>
>>
>> A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack of
>> gum. What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad, because
>> even at that young age he knows that you have to buy things. You just
>> can't take them. And, unless Microsoft allows it - you are "taking"
>> it.
>
> If I shoplift a copy of software from a store, I've committed a crime
> theft of PROPERTY! If I get away with the shoplifting, who does the
> insurance company reimburse? The store owner or the copyright owner of
> that copy of software that was shoplifted?
>
> Now I pay for a Music CD, bring it home, and make a copy for my use in my
> family car. Is there a theft under the law? If you answer yes, then you
> better be prepared to back that up with someone that has been convicted of
> theft for doing that?
>
>>
>> Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves!
>
> Predatory monopolists, and Patent & Copyright Infringers!
>
>> I don't
>> know.
>
> I do. MS is the one that is a proven infringer, not one of its customers
> has ever been found guilty of infringement or breech of contract for
> installing XP on more than one computer for their private non-commercial
> use. And before that day ever comes where that happens, it will be a cold
> day in hell, or the day when MS buys out the government!
>
>> But I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any
>> other software) they sell, "they have the legal right to charge for
>> it"!
>
> I never said they didn't. But that doesn't give them the right to know
> what I do with it after I bring it home, let alone dictate the terms of
> use in my home!
>
>> They also have the "legal" right to charge what the market will
>> bear! And they certainly have the legal right to maximize profits for
>> their stock holders.
>
> A market they monopolize. Believe me, MS is charging more than they
> deserve for Win XP.
>
> "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
>
> MS only has the expectation to receive a fair return from the creative
> labor of its employees, since copyright is bestowed to benefit society as
> a whole, not to the sole benefit of the copyright owner.
>
>> Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user to
>> subsidize Microsoft by buying their software.
>
> LOL! It is still mostly a server OS, and I have yet to find a distro that
> will run at all on my multimedia computer.
>
> My choice is to run a MS OS or to let my computer system, including
> software to collect dust.
>
> My system cost me thousands of dollars, to by a comparable Mac with
> comparable software would cost me $3,000 to $4,000 minimum!
>
>> There are many who
>> would build them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux
>> installed - including me!
>
> Why should I have to buy a new system to run another OS? My computer is
> better than what I get built from anyone else.
>
>> But wow, that takes a bit of work to find
>> someone who will do this! So they buy a Dell and complain afterwards
>> that the O/S was forced upon them. Hogwash I say!
>
> I built my own, over years! I can't afford to start from scratch just to
> run a different OS!
>
>> I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the
>> world of growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates thievery.
>> And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!
>
> And you are being just being a scumbag, and that is what you're brats are
> going to grow up into.
>
> It is not theivery! Can you show us ONE PERSON that has ever been
> convicted of THEFT for installing the same software on more than one
> computer for the private non-commercial use in their home?
>
> If you can't then your fallacious accusation is just bearing false
> witness! Lying! And what kind of brats does a LIAR turn out! HUH?!
>
> So shove that in your effin' pipe, and smoke it out of your A**HOLE! :-p
>
> --
> 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
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
> I see you're on the good stuff today. Congrats!

LOL! I just am not gonna take any sh*t from anyone trying to call me a
thief without one shread of proof that my interpretation of "fair use"
is even a civil infringement under the law, let alone the criminal act
of theft of property. You should know that I don't take sh*t from
anyone.

And you should know that it NOT is a theft. That under copyright law it
isn't the making of copies that is really the evil, it is the
distribution of those copies to others that is what copyright law was
really meant to protect against.

And I'd wager that you would never buy two copies of the same newspaper
because it would be a theft to let your wife read the same newspaper as
you!


> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:OiO41DXZFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> One per household goes too far.
>>
>> So you'd give MS the right to invade the sanctity and privacy of your
>> home?! If you read the Sunday Newpaper, do you let your wife read
>> it when you are done, or do you make her buy her own copy? Doesn't
>> the newpaper have the right to sell your household two copies of the
>> paper? At $1.50 a paper, the newpaper company is living more on the
>> edge of
>> disaster than MS!
>>
>> How about DVDs! Do you buy a copy for each household member in your
>> home that is gonna view it?
>>
>> And what about music CDs?
>>
>> Why do you think software is any different than the other kinds of
>> copyrighted material?
>>
>>> I can certainly agree that maybe you
>>> should be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers
>>> (but that is Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine).
>>
>> LOL! No its not. MS has no right to know what I do with my copies
>> of software in my home. There is no legal precedent for that! Under
>> "fair use" the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to
>> limit my use.
>>> But
>>> one per household? Hell, I know of one family that has about 15
>>> computers between 4 different places of residence. I maintain these
>>> computers, or at least a good number of them. Does your concept
>>> extend that far, just because they are brothers and sisters? When
>>> does it stop?
>>
>> It extends to the household of the head of family of each household.
>>
>> But that is a very rare situation. Most people are lucky enough to
>> own one home.
>>
>>>
>>> A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack
>>> of gum. What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad,
>>> because even at that young age he knows that you have to buy
>>> things. You just can't take them. And, unless Microsoft allows it -
>>> you are "taking" it.
>>
>> If I shoplift a copy of software from a store, I've committed a crime
>> theft of PROPERTY! If I get away with the shoplifting, who does the
>> insurance company reimburse? The store owner or the copyright owner
>> of that copy of software that was shoplifted?
>>
>> Now I pay for a Music CD, bring it home, and make a copy for my use
>> in my family car. Is there a theft under the law? If you answer
>> yes, then you better be prepared to back that up with someone that
>> has been convicted of theft for doing that?
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves!
>>
>> Predatory monopolists, and Patent & Copyright Infringers!
>>
>>> I don't
>>> know.
>>
>> I do. MS is the one that is a proven infringer, not one of its
>> customers has ever been found guilty of infringement or breech of
>> contract for installing XP on more than one computer for their
>> private non-commercial use. And before that day ever comes where
>> that happens, it will be a cold day in hell, or the day when MS buys
>> out the government!
>>> But I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any
>>> other software) they sell, "they have the legal right to charge for
>>> it"!
>>
>> I never said they didn't. But that doesn't give them the right to
>> know what I do with it after I bring it home, let alone dictate the
>> terms of use in my home!
>>
>>> They also have the "legal" right to charge what the market will
>>> bear! And they certainly have the legal right to maximize profits
>>> for their stock holders.
>>
>> A market they monopolize. Believe me, MS is charging more than they
>> deserve for Win XP.
>>
>> "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 MS only has
>> the expectation to receive a fair return from the
>> creative labor of its employees, since copyright is bestowed to
>> benefit society as a whole, not to the sole benefit of the copyright
>> owner.
>>> Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user to
>>> subsidize Microsoft by buying their software.
>>
>> LOL! It is still mostly a server OS, and I have yet to find a
>> distro that will run at all on my multimedia computer.
>>
>> My choice is to run a MS OS or to let my computer system, including
>> software to collect dust.
>>
>> My system cost me thousands of dollars, to by a comparable Mac with
>> comparable software would cost me $3,000 to $4,000 minimum!
>>
>>> There are many who
>>> would build them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux
>>> installed - including me!
>>
>> Why should I have to buy a new system to run another OS? My
>> computer is better than what I get built from anyone else.
>>
>>> But wow, that takes a bit of work to find
>>> someone who will do this! So they buy a Dell and complain afterwards
>>> that the O/S was forced upon them. Hogwash I say!
>>
>> I built my own, over years! I can't afford to start from scratch
>> just to run a different OS!
>>
>>> I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the
>>> world of growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates
>>> thievery. And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS
>>> thievery!
>>
>> And you are being just being a scumbag, and that is what you're
>> brats are going to grow up into.
>>
>> It is not theivery! Can you show us ONE PERSON that has ever been
>> convicted of THEFT for installing the same software on more than one
>> computer for the private non-commercial use in their home?
>>
>> If you can't then your fallacious accusation is just bearing false
>> witness! Lying! And what kind of brats does a LIAR turn out! HUH?!
>>
>> So shove that in your effin' pipe, and smoke it out of your A**HOLE!
>> :-p --
>> 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"



--
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
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Scott wrote:
> I agree on the one copy per household Kurt. But further to this
> copyright BS. If it is illegal to copy software, then why are
> companies such as Sony to name one, allowed to legally sell machines
> such as: DVD, CD burners. DVD copy/players for your living room, PVR
> machines for tv signals...all of these are copyrighted, and yet the
> machines exist....On the one hand every company whines about pirates,
> and on the other they produce and sell machines for that purpose...Go
> figure!

Sony is the biggest hypocrite of the all.

Making copies is not what is really wrong, it is distributing copies to
other people that is the real evil.

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:30:14 -0400, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> So in effect you are saying Kurt, that if you were in Bill Gates
>>> (Microsoft's) shoes, you would spend countless millions of dollars
>>> to develop an operating system. Then you would press 1 (one) CD,
>>> put it out on the street and allow everyone and anyone to copy that
>>> one CD to pass it around. And you would do this and not be upset
>>> because you are not bringing in any money.
>>
>> That is not a "fair use" and you SHOULD know that after all this
>> time.
>>
>> I don't advocate that people should share copyrighted material with
>> others!
>>
>> I would press one CD for each household. Businesses would have to
>> follow commercial use terms.
>>
>>>
>>> Are you a bovine that eats grass for food and sleeps in a pasture.
>>> You had better be because you will not make any money!
>>>
>>> I, for one, wish that Microsoft "would" make a test case. Hell, if I
>>> knew it would work I would even install a copy of pirated software
>>> on my system and send them the proof! The fact is, they are banking
>>> on the concept that the majority of people TRY to be honest - a
>>> concept you seem to have problems with!
>>
>> "Fair Use" is honest and LEGAL!
>>
>> From the Supreme Court's betamax decision:
>>
>> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use";
>> the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a
>> use."
>>
>> If they wanted to limit that statement to only the timeshifting
>> issue of the betamax case the wouldn't have use the generic term of
>> "copyrighted work." Instead it was part of their rationale of why a
>> videotape recorder wasn't a violation of copyright law.
>>
>> MS doesn't possess the right to limit my "fair use." No Copyright
>> Owner does according to the Supreme Court!



--
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"

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
But I do consider what you advocate as being theft. I was taught that you
pay to buy something. I also believe in the EULER, until it is changed or
made invalid by a court of law. That is the way I was brought up.

I didn't call YOU a thief. Why the outburst?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e0ZNuXXZFHA.2400@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> I see you're on the good stuff today. Congrats!
>
> LOL! I just am not gonna take any sh*t from anyone trying to call me a
> thief without one shread of proof that my interpretation of "fair use" is
> even a civil infringement under the law, let alone the criminal act of
> theft of property. You should know that I don't take sh*t from anyone.
>
> And you should know that it NOT is a theft. That under copyright law it
> isn't the making of copies that is really the evil, it is the distribution
> of those copies to others that is what copyright law was really meant to
> protect against.
>
> And I'd wager that you would never buy two copies of the same newspaper
> because it would be a theft to let your wife read the same newspaper as
> you!
>
>
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:OiO41DXZFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>> One per household goes too far.
>>>
>>> So you'd give MS the right to invade the sanctity and privacy of your
>>> home?! If you read the Sunday Newpaper, do you let your wife read
>>> it when you are done, or do you make her buy her own copy? Doesn't
>>> the newpaper have the right to sell your household two copies of the
>>> paper? At $1.50 a paper, the newpaper company is living more on the edge
>>> of
>>> disaster than MS!
>>>
>>> How about DVDs! Do you buy a copy for each household member in your
>>> home that is gonna view it?
>>>
>>> And what about music CDs?
>>>
>>> Why do you think software is any different than the other kinds of
>>> copyrighted material?
>>>
>>>> I can certainly agree that maybe you
>>>> should be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers
>>>> (but that is Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine).
>>>
>>> LOL! No its not. MS has no right to know what I do with my copies
>>> of software in my home. There is no legal precedent for that! Under
>>> "fair use" the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to
>>> limit my use.
>>>> But
>>>> one per household? Hell, I know of one family that has about 15
>>>> computers between 4 different places of residence. I maintain these
>>>> computers, or at least a good number of them. Does your concept
>>>> extend that far, just because they are brothers and sisters? When
>>>> does it stop?
>>>
>>> It extends to the household of the head of family of each household.
>>>
>>> But that is a very rare situation. Most people are lucky enough to
>>> own one home.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack
>>>> of gum. What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad,
>>>> because even at that young age he knows that you have to buy
>>>> things. You just can't take them. And, unless Microsoft allows it -
>>>> you are "taking" it.
>>>
>>> If I shoplift a copy of software from a store, I've committed a crime
>>> theft of PROPERTY! If I get away with the shoplifting, who does the
>>> insurance company reimburse? The store owner or the copyright owner
>>> of that copy of software that was shoplifted?
>>>
>>> Now I pay for a Music CD, bring it home, and make a copy for my use
>>> in my family car. Is there a theft under the law? If you answer
>>> yes, then you better be prepared to back that up with someone that
>>> has been convicted of theft for doing that?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves!
>>>
>>> Predatory monopolists, and Patent & Copyright Infringers!
>>>
>>>> I don't
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> I do. MS is the one that is a proven infringer, not one of its
>>> customers has ever been found guilty of infringement or breech of
>>> contract for installing XP on more than one computer for their
>>> private non-commercial use. And before that day ever comes where
>>> that happens, it will be a cold day in hell, or the day when MS buys
>>> out the government!
>>>> But I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any
>>>> other software) they sell, "they have the legal right to charge for
>>>> it"!
>>>
>>> I never said they didn't. But that doesn't give them the right to
>>> know what I do with it after I bring it home, let alone dictate the
>>> terms of use in my home!
>>>
>>>> They also have the "legal" right to charge what the market will
>>>> bear! And they certainly have the legal right to maximize profits
>>>> for their stock holders.
>>>
>>> A market they monopolize. Believe me, MS is charging more than they
>>> deserve for Win XP.
>>>
>>> "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 MS only has
>>> the expectation to receive a fair return from the
>>> creative labor of its employees, since copyright is bestowed to
>>> benefit society as a whole, not to the sole benefit of the copyright
>>> owner.
>>>> Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user to
>>>> subsidize Microsoft by buying their software.
>>>
>>> LOL! It is still mostly a server OS, and I have yet to find a
>>> distro that will run at all on my multimedia computer.
>>>
>>> My choice is to run a MS OS or to let my computer system, including
>>> software to collect dust.
>>>
>>> My system cost me thousands of dollars, to by a comparable Mac with
>>> comparable software would cost me $3,000 to $4,000 minimum!
>>>
>>>> There are many who
>>>> would build them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux
>>>> installed - including me!
>>>
>>> Why should I have to buy a new system to run another OS? My
>>> computer is better than what I get built from anyone else.
>>>
>>>> But wow, that takes a bit of work to find
>>>> someone who will do this! So they buy a Dell and complain afterwards
>>>> that the O/S was forced upon them. Hogwash I say!
>>>
>>> I built my own, over years! I can't afford to start from scratch
>>> just to run a different OS!
>>>
>>>> I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the
>>>> world of growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates
>>>> thievery. And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS
>>>> thievery!
>>>
>>> And you are being just being a scumbag, and that is what you're
>>> brats are going to grow up into.
>>>
>>> It is not theivery! Can you show us ONE PERSON that has ever been
>>> convicted of THEFT for installing the same software on more than one
>>> computer for the private non-commercial use in their home?
>>>
>>> If you can't then your fallacious accusation is just bearing false
>>> witness! Lying! And what kind of brats does a LIAR turn out! HUH?!
>>>
>>> So shove that in your effin' pipe, and smoke it out of your A**HOLE!
>>> :-p --
>>> 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"
>
>
>
> --
> 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
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
D@annyBoy wrote:
> Is that net or gross profit?

Net before tax.

>
> I wonder what's are the cost involved in sending the CDs to beta
> testers, maintaining the servers for testers?

How much do you buy a blank CD for? Think how little MS pays for bulk
CD press runs. Think how even less is spent in distribution over the
internet.

Think how much they save using volunteer beta testers.



>
> After sales service?

You mean the outsourcing of techsupport jobs to India?

> Maintaining a team to iron out the bugs and
> providing service packs to legal and illegal users?

On staff. Got to keep them busy between Major Software revisions.

> I do shared the opinion that the OS is too expensive for many users
> all over the world, and MS's effort to provide a lean WinXP cheaply
> is a lame excuse. Nevertheless, consumers do have a choice.

I know that I don't. My computer won't run anything but a MS OS. I
know my mother can't run Linux. She had a hard enough time learning
Windows, and a 64, she ain't learning how to use linux.

Using linux for many people means giving up everything they have
invested over the years. In hardware, software, and education. And
forget Apple. I would cost me $3000 to $4000 at the very LEAST to
replace my hardware and software.

Choice is the problem, as it means using MS OS's, or have to make
sacrifices to run another OS. That isn't a really good choice at all!

But one day soon, Linux will become a reasonable choice to make for many
computer users, and then MS is gonna be in a lot of trouble for
purposely pissing off its customer base over the last dozen years or so.
MS's days are numbered when it comes to being the dominent OS of home
consumers, and they only have themselves to blame!

>
>
> While sipping a glass of wine, I read that kurttrail wrote in
> news:et3iYhTZFHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
>
>
>> D@annyBoy wrote:
>>> especially the cost !!!
>>>
>>> BUT if you only know the amount of effort put in to ensure the OS
>>> runs with minimal bugs, then the price you pay for a legal copy is
>>> chicken feed
>>
>> And if you knew the net profit margin, you'd see that MS charges
>> much more than the fair return it is owed for the creative labor of
>> its employees. "Microsoft's 86% Windows profit margin draws criticism
>> from consumer
>> groups" - http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu
>>
>> "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



--
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"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>> D@annyBoy wrote:
>>> especially the cost !!!
>>>
>>> BUT if you only know the amount of effort put in to ensure the OS
>>> runs with minimal bugs, then the price you pay for a legal copy is
>>> chicken feed
>>
>> And if you knew the net profit margin, you'd see that MS charges much
>> more than the fair return it is owed for the creative labor of its
>> employees.
>>
>> "Microsoft's 86% Windows profit margin draws criticism from consumer
>> groups" - http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu
>>
>> "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
>>
>> --
>> 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"

My copy of Ghost - one set of utilities cost me $90 bucks Cdn. In the same
store Windows is $129 Cdn. I'm getting a heck of a lot more software in my
Windows pkg than in my Norton Ghost pkg. [ 1 dollar Cdn is only 0.79
dollars US ]

Even if there are high profit margins, Microsoft's price per unit retail is
still 'reasonable'. Besides, should one purchase a new PC with it pre-load,
one gets it for about 50 bucks. OEM typically goes for about $120.00 Cdn.

OSX is $145 Cdn here.
Redhat Desktop is $224.00 here [ $179.00 USD]

So I can't get 'too' excited over the price of Windows.

Heck I bought -yes legally - a copy on Windows NT 4.0 for about twenty bucks
a few months ago. Mind you it is a bit of an outa-dater but it runs x86
computers nonetheless ..

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
> But I do consider what you advocate as being theft. I was taught that
> you pay to buy something. I also believe in the EULER, until it is
> changed or made invalid by a court of law. That is the way I was
> brought up.
> I didn't call YOU a thief. Why the outburst?

"And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it IS thievery!"

How does a contract become invalidated? Do you know?

First it is breeched, then the aggreived party sues the party that it
considers to be in breech. Then it is up to the aggreived party to not
only prove the breech, but to show an actual loss that was caused by the
breech.

So I breech the One Computer term, MS sues me, says it lost a sale of a
copy of software, and I claim it is a fair use as a defense.

Simplistically that is how contract law goes. But if MS does sue me, I
just go on my merry way. I have done nothing wrong under contract law.
As there is no law that makes breeching a contractual term illegal in
and of itself.

And in over 13 years that MS has had the One Computer term in its OS
EULA, MS has yet to pursue one individual for breech when that breech
was for private non-commercial use.

Just like my website. MS has no problem sueing people over commercial
uses of websites that are similar to theirs. The teen-aged kid, Mike
Rowe, and his site MikeRoweSoft. His problem was that he used it for
commercial use. My site, Microscum, with a look VERY similar to MS's
won't be sued over, and the main reason is that it is a non-commercial
site that is a Parody, to criticize MS.

The main reason that MS doesn't sue a private non-commercial computer
user over the One Computer term, isn't that it is afraid of sueing an
individual, they'll do that when they think they can win, it is because
they know that they stand a very good chance of losing!

The fact that MS has never sued an individual over its One Computer term
isn't an argument that supports the legal enforcability of it, but is
more a support of how likely MS thinks that it would be found NOT
enforceable in a court of law!

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:e0ZNuXXZFHA.2400@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>> I see you're on the good stuff today. Congrats!
>>
>> LOL! I just am not gonna take any sh*t from anyone trying to call
>> me a thief without one shread of proof that my interpretation of
>> "fair use" is even a civil infringement under the law, let alone the
>> criminal act of theft of property. You should know that I don't
>> take sh*t from anyone. And you should know that it NOT is a theft.
>> That under copyright
>> law it isn't the making of copies that is really the evil, it is the
>> distribution of those copies to others that is what copyright law
>> was really meant to protect against.
>>
>> And I'd wager that you would never buy two copies of the same
>> newspaper because it would be a theft to let your wife read the same
>> newspaper as you!
>>
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:OiO41DXZFHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>>> One per household goes too far.
>>>>
>>>> So you'd give MS the right to invade the sanctity and privacy of
>>>> your home?! If you read the Sunday Newpaper, do you let your wife
>>>> read it when you are done, or do you make her buy her own copy?
>>>> Doesn't
>>>> the newpaper have the right to sell your household two copies of
>>>> the paper? At $1.50 a paper, the newpaper company is living more
>>>> on the edge of
>>>> disaster than MS!
>>>>
>>>> How about DVDs! Do you buy a copy for each household member in
>>>> your home that is gonna view it?
>>>>
>>>> And what about music CDs?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think software is any different than the other kinds of
>>>> copyrighted material?
>>>>
>>>>> I can certainly agree that maybe you
>>>>> should be allowed to install the O/S on a maximum of two computers
>>>>> (but that is Microsoft's decision to make - not yours or mine).
>>>>
>>>> LOL! No its not. MS has no right to know what I do with my copies
>>>> of software in my home. There is no legal precedent for that!
>>>> Under "fair use" the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to
>>>> limit my use.
>>>>> But
>>>>> one per household? Hell, I know of one family that has about 15
>>>>> computers between 4 different places of residence. I maintain
>>>>> these computers, or at least a good number of them. Does your
>>>>> concept extend that far, just because they are brothers and
>>>>> sisters? When does it stop?
>>>>
>>>> It extends to the household of the head of family of each
>>>> household. But that is a very rare situation. Most people are
>>>> lucky enough to
>>>> own one home.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A three year old child goes into a candy store and picks up a pack
>>>>> of gum. What is the first thing he does. He hands it to mom/dad,
>>>>> because even at that young age he knows that you have to buy
>>>>> things. You just can't take them. And, unless Microsoft allows it
>>>>> - you are "taking" it.
>>>>
>>>> If I shoplift a copy of software from a store, I've committed a
>>>> crime theft of PROPERTY! If I get away with the shoplifting, who
>>>> does the insurance company reimburse? The store owner or the
>>>> copyright owner of that copy of software that was shoplifted?
>>>>
>>>> Now I pay for a Music CD, bring it home, and make a copy for my use
>>>> in my family car. Is there a theft under the law? If you answer
>>>> yes, then you better be prepared to back that up with someone that
>>>> has been convicted of theft for doing that?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the people at Microsoft are just a gang of thieves!
>>>>
>>>> Predatory monopolists, and Patent & Copyright Infringers!
>>>>
>>>>> I don't
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> I do. MS is the one that is a proven infringer, not one of its
>>>> customers has ever been found guilty of infringement or breech of
>>>> contract for installing XP on more than one computer for their
>>>> private non-commercial use. And before that day ever comes where
>>>> that happens, it will be a cold day in hell, or the day when MS
>>>> buys out the government!
>>>>> But I do know that because they developed the O/S (and any
>>>>> other software) they sell, "they have the legal right to charge
>>>>> for it"!
>>>>
>>>> I never said they didn't. But that doesn't give them the right to
>>>> know what I do with it after I bring it home, let alone dictate the
>>>> terms of use in my home!
>>>>
>>>>> They also have the "legal" right to charge what the market will
>>>>> bear! And they certainly have the legal right to maximize profits
>>>>> for their stock holders.
>>>>
>>>> A market they monopolize. Believe me, MS is charging more than
>>>> they deserve for Win XP.
>>>>
>>>> "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 MS only
>>>> has the expectation to receive a fair return from the
>>>> creative labor of its employees, since copyright is bestowed to
>>>> benefit society as a whole, not to the sole benefit of the
>>>> copyright owner.
>>>>> Since Linux has come out there is nothing forcing a computer user
>>>>> to subsidize Microsoft by buying their software.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! It is still mostly a server OS, and I have yet to find a
>>>> distro that will run at all on my multimedia computer.
>>>>
>>>> My choice is to run a MS OS or to let my computer system, including
>>>> software to collect dust.
>>>>
>>>> My system cost me thousands of dollars, to by a comparable Mac with
>>>> comparable software would cost me $3,000 to $4,000 minimum!
>>>>
>>>>> There are many who
>>>>> would build them a system either without an O/S, or with Linux
>>>>> installed - including me!
>>>>
>>>> Why should I have to buy a new system to run another OS? My
>>>> computer is better than what I get built from anyone else.
>>>>
>>>>> But wow, that takes a bit of work to find
>>>>> someone who will do this! So they buy a Dell and complain
>>>>> afterwards that the O/S was forced upon them. Hogwash I say!
>>>>
>>>> I built my own, over years! I can't afford to start from scratch
>>>> just to run a different OS!
>>>>
>>>>> I do know that the poor 3 year old does not stand a chance in the
>>>>> world of growing up honest if he has a parent who advocates
>>>>> thievery. And until Microsoft, or the courts, say otherwise - it
>>>>> IS thievery!
>>>>
>>>> And you are being just being a scumbag, and that is what you're
>>>> brats are going to grow up into.
>>>>
>>>> It is not theivery! Can you show us ONE PERSON that has ever been
>>>> convicted of THEFT for installing the same software on more than
>>>> one computer for the private non-commercial use in their home?
>>>>
>>>> If you can't then your fallacious accusation is just bearing false
>>>> witness! Lying! And what kind of brats does a LIAR turn out!
>>>> HUH?! So shove that in your effin' pipe, and smoke it out of your
>>>> A**HOLE! :-p --
>>>> 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"
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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"



--
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
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>> D@annyBoy wrote:
>>>> especially the cost !!!
>>>>
>>>> BUT if you only know the amount of effort put in to ensure the OS
>>>> runs with minimal bugs, then the price you pay for a legal copy is
>>>> chicken feed
>>>
>>> And if you knew the net profit margin, you'd see that MS charges
>>> much more than the fair return it is owed for the creative labor of
>>> its employees.
>>>
>>> "Microsoft's 86% Windows profit margin draws criticism from consumer
>>> groups" - http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu
>>>
>>> "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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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"
>
> My copy of Ghost - one set of utilities cost me $90 bucks Cdn. In the
> same store Windows is $129 Cdn. I'm getting a heck of a lot more
> software in my Windows pkg than in my Norton Ghost pkg. [ 1 dollar
> Cdn is only 0.79 dollars US ]
>
> Even if there are high profit margins, Microsoft's price per unit
> retail is still 'reasonable'. Besides, should one purchase a new PC
> with it pre-load, one gets it for about 50 bucks. OEM typically goes
> for about $120.00 Cdn.
>
> OSX is $145 Cdn here.
> Redhat Desktop is $224.00 here [ $179.00 USD]
>
> So I can't get 'too' excited over the price of Windows.
>
> Heck I bought -yes legally - a copy on Windows NT 4.0 for about
> twenty bucks a few months ago. Mind you it is a bit of an outa-dater
> but it runs x86 computers nonetheless ..

I'm not gonna get into the minutia. MS sells how many copies of its OS
compare to Ghost?

1 billion to 10 million?

Do you understand now? And Symantec is also one of the colluding
members of the BSA Trust, they are ripping you off too more than likely.

I know I wouldn't never buy another of their products ever again. Same
with MS and EVERY single member of the BSA TRUST! I prefer buying
software from smaller venders, that actually care about keeping their
customers happy, than the mega comglomerates that just take advantage of
their customers!

--
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"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>>

If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever price
you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less than a million
bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a loss, I'm letting it go to
the first perosn with 50 bucks for it". You can sell it at whatever price
you want.

By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices they want
for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost thousands to get an
Apple computer with anything near up-to-date specs.

By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest model.

So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price they put
on it is well within reach of most people. And like I said, if you are
really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4 online for only twenty bucks.

So I just do not see your beef in this regard.

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>>
>
> If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever
> price you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less
> than a million bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a loss,
> I'm letting it go to the first perosn with 50 bucks for it". You can
> sell it at whatever price you want.
>
> By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices
> they want for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost
> thousands to get an Apple computer with anything near up-to-date
> specs.
>
> By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest
> model.
>
> So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price
> they put on it is well within reach of most people. And like I said,
> if you are really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4 online for
> only twenty bucks.
>
> So I just do not see your beef in this regard.

MS is a proven predatory monopoly, none of the other companies are.

MS is the one with the outrageous profit margin on its software, I
remember figuring out at the time that their markup was something in the
400% range, when they sell more copies of their product than ANY of the
other companies.

MS as a PROVEN predatory monopoly isn't like any other company at the
moment.

That will change though. MS has antagonized its customer base too much
over the years, and it will come back to bite them.

--
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"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>> If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever
>>> price you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less
>>> than a million bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a loss,
>>> I'm letting it go to the first perosn with 50 bucks for it". You can
>>> sell it at whatever price you want.
>>>
>>> By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices
>>> they want for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost
>>> thousands to get an Apple computer with anything near up-to-date
>>> specs.
>>>
>>> By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest
>>> model.
>>>
>>> So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price
>>> they put on it is well within reach of most people. And like I said,
>>> if you are really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4 online for
>>> only twenty bucks.
>>>
>>> So I just do not see your beef in this regard.
>>
>> MS is a proven predatory monopoly, none of the other companies are.

They were found guilty of monopolistic practices [mostly stemming out of
Windows 95 hysteria]. But Microsoft does not have a monopoly by any stretch
of the imagination.

>> MS is the one with the outrageous profit margin on its software, I
>> remember figuring out at the time that their markup was something in
>> the 400% range, when they sell more copies of their product than ANY
>> of the other companies.

Wide profit margin is not a crime last time I checked.

>> MS as a PROVEN predatory monopoly isn't like any other company at the
>> moment.

Apple has closed its platfom to a great extent. If there's a monopolized
platform out there Apple fits the description much better than x86/64.

>> That will change though. MS has antagonized its customer base too
>> much over the years, and it will come back to bite them.

Most people want x86/64 for their computer and want Microsoft Windows as
their operating system for it.

>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you carpenter a desk and decide to sell it, you can put whatever
>>>> price you want on it. You can say "I'm not letting this go for less
>>>> than a million bucks" .. you can say "I don't care if I take a
>>>> loss, I'm letting it go to the first perosn with 50 bucks for it".
>>>> You can sell it at whatever price you want.
>>>>
>>>> By extension, Apple Computers can charge whatever riduclous prices
>>>> they want for their [well under 3GHz] G5s, and they do. It cost
>>>> thousands to get an Apple computer with anything near up-to-date
>>>> specs.
>>>>
>>>> By extension, Ford can set whatever price it wants on its latest
>>>> model.
>>>>
>>>> So why can't Microsoft decide what to price its software. The price
>>>> they put on it is well within reach of most people. And like I
>>>> said, if you are really budgeting, you can get a copy of NT 4
>>>> online for only twenty bucks.
>>>>
>>>> So I just do not see your beef in this regard.
>>>
>>> MS is a proven predatory monopoly, none of the other companies are.
>
> They were found guilty of monopolistic practices [mostly stemming out
> of Windows 95 hysteria]. But Microsoft does not have a monopoly by
> any stretch of the imagination.

LOL! According to the courts, you are wrong. And if it hadn't been for
a Judge that like to talked to the press too much, MS would probably be
broken up into at least two different companies right now.

MS is a monopoly, until it has serious competition with the average
computer users. Linux is still too complicated of a server OS for most
computer users. Apple is not a viable alternative, because it means
buying entirely different hardware. In most cases, the choice is MS OS
or let your computer system and software you bought over the years
collect dust, and that is not a viable choice. So tell me again,
where's the beef! Where is the Burger King to the McDonalds? Where is
the Ford to the GM? Where is this supposed VIABLE choice?

>
>>> MS is the one with the outrageous profit margin on its software, I
>>> remember figuring out at the time that their markup was something in
>>> the 400% range, when they sell more copies of their product than ANY
>>> of the other companies.
>
> Wide profit margin is not a crime last time I checked.

I didn't say it was a crime. Nothing like blowing it out of proportion.
MS is a legally PROVEN monopoly, whether you agree with the courts
decision or not. MS was lucky they stretched out the court case as long
as they did, and got a Justice Dept. more favorable to them to come to a
compromise deal with!

>
>>> MS as a PROVEN predatory monopoly isn't like any other company at
>>> the moment.
>
> Apple has closed its platfom to a great extent. If there's a
> monopolized platform out there Apple fits the description much better
> than x86/64.

2% of personal computers. And Apple is not the legally PROVEN predatory
monopoly.

>
>>> That will change though. MS has antagonized its customer base too
>>> much over the years, and it will come back to bite them.
>
> Most people want x86/64 for their computer and want Microsoft Windows
> as their operating system for it.

I'd prefer a non-MS OS myself, unfortunately no distro of Linux that
I've tried will run on my PC.

And given a REAL choice, most people rather save their money than dish
out the hundreds of bucks they have been giving MS for its OS,
especially considering the rules MS wants to impose on them. And that
REAL choice isn't here yet, but it's a comin' and MS is gonna pay!
Where's the last big monopoly today? Ma' Bell or AT&T? Think about it!

And MS has pissed its customers off all over the globe. Whole
countries, like Brazil! MS is gonna get some big time payback and its
gonna happen soon enough! And I'm gonna laugh!

--
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"

Shooter
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:53:29 -0400, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

> MS was lucky they stretched out the court case as long
>as they did, and got a Justice Dept. more favorable to them to come to a
>compromise deal with!

I heard on one of the news segments right after all this congressional
investigation stuff was over that what really stopped it all was Bill
telling them in closed session that if they screwed with him any more,
he would pack the whole nine yards up and move off shore. Since the
whole government runs of Windows, they backed off.

>And MS has pissed its customers off all over the globe. Whole
>countries, like Brazil! MS is gonna get some big time payback and its
>gonna happen soon enough! And I'm gonna laugh!

What goes around comes around. But even if Bill's house of cards does
come falling down because of his business ethics (or lack thereof), he
still goes out with a bundle in his pocket. Like Ted Waite(sp) that
owned and finally screwed up Gateway as a viable contender, his
unethical business practices nearly brought that company to its knees.
But Ted still walked away with pockets full of money.

That's the real problem... When these houses of cards do finally come
falling down, its always the workers at the bottom that end up
loosing, not the clowns on top that caused the debacle in the first
place by unethical business practices.

Regards,


Activation code