Re: XP or 2000? ... Really about Kurt trolling the group

From: Raymond J. Johnson Jr. (RayJay_at_nospam.org)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:30:38 -0600

I also can't believe it, but, responses in line...
"Linda B" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#8DK9K6DFHA.3504@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I can't believe I'm going to do this, but...
|
| Regardless of whether or not you think the whole idea of software
licensing,
| copyright law, and fair use is legal, the simple fact is that, when you
| install Windows, you agree to abide by the terms of the EULA, which is a
| legally *enforceable* contract between you and Microsoft.

You seem to be missing the point. Only a court of law can determine whether
or not any contract, in any single instance, is enforceable.

| The reason the EULA has not been enforced between MS and any given end
|user| is quite simply that it's not worth their time or money to go after
single
| users.

Speculation on your part.

|When MS goes after pirates, it's *far* more cost-effective for them
| to go after large-scale sources. The reasoning is the same as government
| officials going after drug dealers: they can either spend large amounts
of
| time and money going after millions of individual drug users, or spend a
| tiny fraction of that time and money going after the source, the dealer.
| There is no benefit for Microsoft to pursue legal action against Kurt, or
| anyone else who pirates software in the comfort of their own home.

All basically true, I think, except that you seem to be equating fair use
with piracy, albeit on a small scale.

| You keep talking about how Microsoft "doesn't have the balls" to enforce
| their EULA against a case of single-user piracy. It's not that they think
| that they're going to lose -- rather, it's a foregone conclusion that they
| would win that case.

*Major* speculation. There are some very good reasons to believe that they
might not prevail, particularly in cases where the alleged EULA-breacher has
made no profit, and had no intention to make any.

| There is no need for them to establish that a breach
| of contract is illegal.

You have to be very careful about use of "illegal." To rob a bank is
illegal. The act in and of itself is illegal, regardless of who's accused of
it. When dealing with contract law, the principles are different. If I
have a contract with you, and you believe I've breached it, you can't go to
the police and have me arrested. The police would tell you to hire a lawyer,
because it's a civil matter. And in civil matters, legality is established
in court.

| It's very simple. The EULA states very clearly
| that you're not allowed to have the software installed on more than one
| machine at the same time, and you agree to abide by those terms when you
| install the software for the first time.

Maybe I don't agree. Don't forget, it's the EULA that says I must agree, and
we haven't tested it yet. The EULA might be unenforceable. And if I buy a
copy of XP and then install it on two machines, it might be considered fair
use by a court of law. If I had no intention of buying a copy of XP for the
second machine, and if estopped from doing it I still wouldn't, MS hasn't
lost anything.

 You also state that violating a
| contract is not illegal, which is ridiculous. How many times have you
heard
| of people getting sued for breach of contract? This is exactly what
you're
| doing when you install one copy of Windows on two or more computers --
| you're committing a breach of contract. The outcome of these breach of
| contract trials is based on whether or not an actual breach of the
contract
| was committed -- not whether or not there is a legal precedent for
contracts
| being breached.

Wrong. All civil (and much criminal) law is based on precedent.

If there were any benefit to MS going after you for piracy,
| there is no question that they would win that trial. Seriously. Think
| about it.You, and your lawyer, against the multi-billion dollar corporate
| behemoth and their legions of hunchbacked, fang-toothed, bloodied,
| war-hardened robot lawyers. And they're made out of carbon fiber and pure
| evil, and their brains are supercomputers from the future. Who's gonna
win
| that battle?

More speculation, this time with a dose of fantasy.

| I'm not saying I like this arrangement, I'm not saying that I think that
the
| EULA is a good idea, or fair, or whatever. I'm not even against doing
what
| you will in the privacy of your own home. I'm saying that, by installing
| the software on two computers -- with one license -- you are commiting a
| breach of contract.

But it's not *illegal* if the contract's not enforceable! Why is that so
hard for people to understand?

|MS won't come after you for the simple reason that
| you're a small fry, you're too small a target, and not worth their time.
If
| you were duplicating CDs and selling them on the internet -- or even just
| giving them away -- your legal troubles might be much more pressing.

Because then a criminal act would have taken place, and the seller would be
depriving MS of sales. A completely different situation than installing XP
on your desktop and your laptop.
|
|
| "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
| news:OdVGS45DFHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Leythos wrote:
| > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:51:56 +0100, Alias wrote:
| > >
| > >> Besides, where I live, fair use HAS been proven in MANY courts of
| > >> law to be all right for personal use. You act like US laws are the
| > >> only laws in the world and, guess what, they aren't.
| > >
| > > Nope, I do not. If your laws say it's good then I'm happy for you and
| > > have no argument. Kurt has not indicated that he's from outside the
| > > US or that his laws support his position (since the ones he quotes do
| > > not).
| > >
| > > If your country had made it legal then I have no issues with you or
| > > your ability to take that action - is that simple enough for you?
| >
| > And there is no law or legal precendent that makes fair use of software
| > illegal in the US.
| >
| > Is that simple enough for you?!
| >
| > --
| > Peace!
| > Kurt
| > Self-anointed Moderator
| > microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| > http://microscum.com
| > "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| > "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
| >
| >
|
|

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ok, lets clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
    ... >> breech a contract or certain term of a contract. ... > "valid and legal" reasons to void Microsoft's EULA. ... court of law, then I will. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: ok, lets clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
    ... There is no clause in the EULA which states that one who ... "fair use" rights are abridged. ... Such a contract would be ... the EULA disagrees with the law (established plainly by the U.S. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: BT Total Broadband
    ... essentially comes down to an explicit or implicit personal contract. ... And you seem incapable of grasping the difference between what the law says ... first to breach the agreement, ... download, use or re-use any material which is abusive, indecent, defamatory, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: BT Total Broadband
    ... And you seem incapable of grasping the difference between what the law says and what it should say. ... first to breach the agreement, ... The vast majority of those using so much bandwidth are illicitly downloading copyright material in breach of their contract with their ISP. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: XP or 2000? ... Really about Kurt trolling the group
    ... legally *enforceable* contract between you and Microsoft. ... The reason the EULA has not been enforced between MS and any given end user ... There is no need for them to establish that a breach ... install the software for the first time. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)