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

From: kurttrail (dontemailme_at_anywhereintheknowuniverse.org)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:17:44 -0500

Raymond J. Johnson Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Wow! Concise and directly to the point! Much better than my rambling
explanation.

I tip my hat to 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: Shrink Wrap my EULA ?
    ... >> You may refuse to accept it and the install will be cancelled. ... >>> You have the right to refuse the EULA. ... >>> permits you as a party to the contract to refuse the terms of such. ... >>> you wanted an OEM version that included all the license documentation, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • 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)
  • Re: Shrink Wrap my EULA ?
    ... > You may refuse to accept it and the install will be cancelled. ... >> You have the right to refuse the EULA. ... >> permits you as a party to the contract to refuse the terms of such. ... and other materials in the OEM package then you need to ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Shrink Wrap my EULA ?
    ... Your right to decline the EULA also occurs during install - that is why we ... You may refuse to accept it and the install will be cancelled. ... > you as a party to the contract to refuse the terms of such. ... and other materials in the OEM package then you need to ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Product Activation
    ... You clearly don't have a clue, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, how contract law works. ... It is up to the supposedly aggrieved party to take Microsoft to court and prove the contract unconscionable. ... Even when the US' Department of Justice and several state's Attorney's General were trying to sue Microsoft for monopolistic practices, not a single one of those highly politically-motivated lawyers even suggested that there might be anything wrong with the EULA? ... Microsoft finally took steps to enforce their long-standing licensing terms, and now you're put out because you no longer can easily install a single license on multiple computers. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)