Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: Donald McDaniel <dlmcdaniel2005@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:09:00 -0700
On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:17:06 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
><snip>
> How can one's "fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which one
>voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is agreeing that
>one's "fair use" isn't abridged.
Not so, Mr. Chambers. Even Microsoft does not require in its EULAs
for a customer to agree that his "fair use" rights are not being
abridged. There is no clause in the EULA which states that one who
installs the software MUST abrogate his right to disagree that his
"fair use" rights are abridged. Such a contract would be
UNENFORCEABLE, since it would be the same as abrogating his rights to
integrity of thought and mind. Of course, I'm sure some Microsoft
synchopants would LIKE to see such a clause in the United States
Constitution, and in the Microsoft EULAs. I won't say who they are.
Everyone who posts in these newsgroups know who they are already.
Very specious reasoning, Mr. Chambers. It is perfectly possible to
agree to a contract, for convenience sake, and STILL hold on to a
belief that "fair use" is being abridged. No contract on the face of
the Earth can abridge a man's innate right to the integrity of his own
mind and thoughts (except maybe in N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and other
anti-democratic nations). In fact, most Microsoft EULAs have a clause
in them (if I'm not mistaken) which state very plainly that the terms
of the EULA do not apply where such terms would be applied in the case
of a law or statue which disagrees with the terms. We believe that
the EULA disagrees with the law (established plainly by the U.S.
Supreme Court) concerning "fair use". Many of us came to this
conclusion AFTER agreeing to the terms of the EULA (an agreement we
reached AFTER purchasing the product, since the EULA is NOT published
on the outside of the product packaging). For years, I agreed to
Microsoft's EULA sight unseen. Believe me, I now ALWAYS read my EULA
after purchasing and beginning the installation of a Microsoft
Product. And I agree (sometimes with reservations) to the EULA by
installing the product, because the other options are unacceptable to
me because of price or features.
On the matter of an individual no longer agreeing with the EULA and
abrogating it: Microsoft itself has abrogated its EULA as far as XP
OEM software is concerned by beginning to no longer allow Internet
Activation of XP OEM AFTER both parties have agreed to the EULA, which
PLAINLY states that an individual may, under the EULA, activate his
software EITHER via the Internet OR via the phone. Since Microsoft
has abrogated its own EULA, I believe the individual customer is NO
LONGER bound by the XP OEM EULA.
>
>
>> ... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
>> business contracting server corporate profit and interest
>
>
> My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
>case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my position.
Law in the United States at the current time is contradictory in many
cases, from state to state. Such an argument is useless, since a good
lawyer can establish the rights of his clients(either public or
private) under almost ANY circumstances, if he goes to the right state
or jurisdiction.
>
>
>> and how best to
>> defeat human "rights" should they interfere.
Why do you enclose the term human "rights" in quotes, as if to show
that such "rights" don't really exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
something here.
But as far as "human rights" are concerned, both the United States
Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence of
the first Constitutional Congress, have ENTHRONED forever the basic
human "rights" of an individual. Trying to get a man to abrogate
these "rights" is evil and criminal, as far as I am concerned. How
can basic human rights interfere in ANYTHING? The Declaration of
Independence tells us that these rights are GOD-GIVEN. To try to take
these rights away from a Man is to try to defeat God Himself. This
will NEVER be possible.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
>
>> Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and I'm only
>> doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human rights,
>> especially that of the individual in her or his home should be more than
>> respected, they should be revered.
>>
>
> And I'd certainly not argue with that.
Then WHY are you arguing with "that", if you'd "certainly not argue
with that."
> I simply don't see how it could
>possibly be relevant.
How can you not see that ensuring that basic human rights are
inviolable is truly relevant to all contracts? It is in the very
SPIRIT of Law. If you can't see that, you are like the Pharisees of
Jesus' day, who kept the LETTER of the Law, but failed to abide by the
SPIRIT of the Law. And the lawyers of Microsoft are like the Scribes
of the Pharisees, who interpreted the Law in such a way that the
spirit of theLaw was abrogated by the Pharisees, who used the Scribes
to re-write the Law according to THEIR evil, selfish understanding of
it. This allowed them to persecute the righteous, and oppress the
poor, and still pat themselves on the back, and tell each other "You
keep the Law, but they don't".
>I can't understand how abiding by the terms of a
>contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an attack on either
>human rights or privacy.
If you can't see that, you're as blind as a bat. If one keeps the
terms of an evil contract, one becomes evil himself.
The Nazis in Germany made many laws, which enabled them to steal the
possessions of anyone they wanted "legally". And the population sat
back and "kept the Law" (or closed their eyes to the evil which was
going on). Abiding by the "Law" in that case led the nation to utter
ruin. Evil starts small, Mr. Chambers. Mr. Gates has grown grossly
wealthy by stealing the money of his customers with Microsoft's
spurious interpretation of the "fair use" laws. No wonder he is
giving some of it away to good causes. He probably feels guilty.
This is good. But maybe in addition, he should give some of it back
to his customers by lowering the prices of his products, and by
replacing his evil EULAs with ones which include basic human rights,
and a true interpretation of "fair use" law.
>If you don't like the terms of a contract,
>don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If the contract accompanies
>the use of software, simply use a software product with whose license
>one agrees.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================
.
- References:
- ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: Tim.T
- Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: bonio
- Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: Bruce Chambers
- Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: kurttrail
- Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: Bruce Chambers
- Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- From: Bruce Chambers
- ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- Prev by Date: No "Help & Support" start
- Next by Date: Screen Print question
- Previous by thread: Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- Next by thread: Re: ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
