Re: Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications application

Galen wrote:

In news:OpAQ0GNaGHA.4916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
kurttrail had this to say:

Which reminds me! Last month was the one year anniversary of me
stopping smoking, so I celebrated by drinking Black & Tans, and
smoking three cigarettes! Boy did they taste great!

I did try to warn 'em... Alas, no one ever listens. Didn't your
mother ever tell you nobody likes a quitter?

Oh, I'm quite careful not to say I've quit cigarettes. I stopped
smoking for 4 years in the 1990's.

People seem to mistake people who are vocal with stupidity. I guess,
after a trip to the pub, that could be considered a good general
statement but it doesn't always apply.

Of course I still think you're POTENTIALLY wrong at this point and
until such a time as fair use is decided by a court of law in this
case (such as it may be) no one will really know.

What I know is that I have a right to my interpretation of "fair use,"
unless the copyright owner disagrees, sues me, and wins in court. Until
then, I'm doing nothing wrong. And since people have been fairly using
Windows since MS added its One Computer crap in the EULA over 13 years
ago, I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for MS to sue me over my
interpretation.

The car analogy
doesn't work because the closest it would come to - really - would be
someone saying, well, I bought a Ford Focus so I can drive any Focus
I want when ever I want and as much as I want and the opposite end of
the spectrum you bought my car and you will drive it according to my
rules. Personally I'd like to think there is a common ground. ;)

That doesn't work, because you aren't trying to use anyone else copy of
a Ford.

The true analogy would be if you made a second copy of a Ford Focus in
your back yard for your own personal use. And there is nothing illegal
about that, unless you try to sell it.

However, realistically, fair use will be decided by a non-partial
group who kowtow to the highest bidder during election time probably.
And, realistically, people are under some sort of assumption that
they've the rights to tell other people what to do. If you put ads
up, generate enough users, are innovative enough, and work hard
enough (well, it's my pipe dream, I'll tell it any way I want) then
you can buy enough shares to say what a company can do or can't do.
Until then, and no I'm not a Republican, random people don't belong
out of the boardroom and the business goal is to make money for the
shareholders and not to be some sort of sympathetic bleeding heart
liberal. (Ouch, that just came out of my mouth...)
It may be sad but it is true - I think - I don't really know?
Idealism has a place but, well, when you are doing a job for someone
else then (and that is what Microsoft does - it makes money for the
stock holders)

Does it? I think all this copy-protection crap actually ends up costing
stock holders. The piracy rate was dropping before MS introduced
copy-protection to the masses. Hell, the piracy rate in 1994 before the
majority of people even owned PCs was the highest that the BSA ever
recorded!

Now people are experiencing problems associated with copy-protection,
and that generates ill will towards the companies that use it. And that
is gonna hit those companies in their wallet, not to mention the costs
of developing the copy-protection and the infrastructure to maintain it.

MS's stock price hasn't really grown at all since they introduced
copy-protection in their products, so I don't see how it helps stock
holders at all.

your job is to do what you are told and if you have a
problem then move on or, if your problem is illegal then blow the
whistle. That they let your posts continue implies to me that (and
come on now Kurt, you KNOW legal's looked at it by now and their
legal department knows FAR MORE than you or I - and they let you
carry on) they're not worried.

Then they should sue and prove their point. But that they haven't show
a reluctance, I would say a fear of losing. MS is not a company to shy
away from a legal battle, unless it knows it has a good chance of
losing.


Oh my...

I accepted my MVP status back then because I was assured that I was
able to retain my own feelings and able to state them in public
without fear of repercussion.

So... I shall...

The EULA...

Dude, it's being worked on and is a far sight better than many other
companies out there. You can take your XP and install it (as far as
I'm aware) on dual core CPUs with up to two sockets of them - CPUx4
in other words - and still be within the EULA. Virtualization of the
cores is even more intense - pay per OS in use. Give credit where it
is due - fair use? Find me another major vendor of software who will
allow you that. How many machines can the Apple users install on
legally before they violate their TOS? Better yet, even if they could
install on a million machines - how many will it actually run on?

Linux. I own pay a pay-for distro and I can install it on as many PC
with as many CPUs virtual and real as I want.

The legal issues...

Don't know - I'm not a lawyer. That they let you continue (except when
you're overly aggressive) is a sign that they don't really care.

And their lack of due diligence can be held against them if the ever sue
someone "fairly using" Windows.

If
they - Microsoft - don't care then that means that they're probably
pretty sure of their situation. You bluff one or two people, you
don't try to bluff all of usenet. Not if you are a part of their
legal team.
The reality...

Some dude kicked 'em in the who-sits for selling a copy of their
software. They said he'd agreed to the EULA, he'd never opened the
package nor installed it. He actually made a profit selling it. (I
think it was a student edition of XP.)

Legal issues? I don't see it lasting long...

Reality - that's the topic... Name an OS that comes without a media
player? If I had a stake in a game company is it okay to sue Mandriva
because I can play a game while it is installing? Surely that impacts
sales... iTunes and Apple? Now if a monopoly is there - then iTunes,
Apple, and an iPod are it. No, someone is (hopefully) going to come
along and say play fair which is NOT what the EU is doing.

LOL! I have an MP3 player that doesn't use itunes and isn't a ipod.
They are easy to find. Much harder to find a PC OEM that sells
non-Windows PCs.

They, the
EU, are in a position where they're seemingly failing financially
with any long-term prospects and are hoping to recoup their losses
via lawsuits. The reality is that Microsoft should - and probably
will - say something akin to "Bugger it, we'll just not employ nor
sell anything directly in your countries and if you have any issues
speak to the OEMs who do so." A recent article in either
ComputerWorld or NetworkWorld pointed out that they could pay their
fines out of petty cash for something like another 40 years even if
they never made another dime. That puts you back at step one.
The whole time you've ranted about the EULA and fair use. I'd like to
say it's going to be decided and soon but, well, with everything
moving to virtualization and multiple cores you'll likely see the
market fix it long before any government body does.

More than 13 years! And actually the gov't has tried to clear up the
situation with UCITA.

I am pretty sure the above doesn't make a lot of sense. Either way,
two things... Many of your ideals are already - within reason and
scope of a company who's job it is to benefit the owners

Again, I don't think copy-protection is really in the interest of the
owners.

- underway
and it isn't just Microsoft that has these EULAs and some are even
FAR more restrictive than Microsoft's.

And almost ALL of those companies with highly restrictive EULAs are
colluding members of the BSA Trust.

As far as I'm concerned these industry watchdog groups should be banned
in the interest of consumers. The RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA!

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."


.

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: 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: 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: hardware hash (coded profile) kept at MS or on PC?
    ... But you have done more then one install using that license key (that was not ... Corect it technically is according to the EULA. ... >>> 3) would it even recognize that multiple installs ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment)