Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" <aka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ONUB35bBHHA.4348@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" <aka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ukd4M$XBHHA.996@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gregg Hill wrote:
Alias,

I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll respond.

SNIP
I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use in regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is where we disagree.

Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. I loosely define it as taking something from someone without permission or compensation. A thief who breaks into your home and steals your TV would likely think it is "fair use" for him, too, because you have so much more money than he has. An ethical and moral person would realize that just because you have more money than the guy breaking into your house, it is still wrong for him to do so. As I stated before, if you steal (take without permission or compenstation) one apple, or the whole orchard, you have still stolen. I'll bet that every thief, rapist, and murderer in prison thinks they were justified in what they did.

You can rationalize all you want, but if you do that in this case, you break the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is legally binding in your country. It is an agreement between the seller and the END USER, YOU, and if you violate it, you are stealing, plain and simple.


I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery, marijuana, etc. and you had no comment.

Yes, I did, it was near the bottom of the last post. By the way, your analogy to Prohibition is incorrect. The alcohol manufacturers were not the ones restricting access to their own product. The alcohol manufacturers never said we could buy a bottle of booze but had to consume it ourselves without sharing it. The government was trying to tell us we could not consume alcohol. The same thing goes for marijuana. It is not the drug smugglers and dealers who are asking you not to share their product.

In the case of this thread, the manufacturer has an agreement between itself and its end users only to use the software on one computer per purchased license. That is not even remotely close to your off-base arguments.

You compare the CHOICE of whether or not to use software and people being FORCED into slavery? And you riduculed ME for bad analogies? Give me a break!




If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change, Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them.

Trust me, Microsoft knows that people disagree with them, and the massive pirating by those people who disagree with them has led directly to the anti-piracy measures in their software today. You (pirates) have brought this upon yourselves by your dishonesty, lack of morals, and lack of ethics.




I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did not steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take something that belongs to someone else.

Good for you. I commend you for not stealing when you were poor. However, you advocate doing it now, but you call it "fair use." Fair to whom? Only to software pirates. Something that is "fair" benefits both parties.




See the difference?


No, I don't see the difference,
What a surprise.

because there is none. You just stated that
again when you said, "I don't think it's right to take something that belongs to someone else."
Um, how can I take something I already have?


Because what you "have" is ONE license for ONE computer. If you install it on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you. You do NOT "have" multiple licenses.

That's the EULA, not the law, saying that.




In the case of Microsoft's XP software, there is an END USER License Agreement, a document that binds the manufacturer and the END USER, YOU, to an agreement before you use their software. This agreement is between YOU and the manufacturer, regardless of the country in which you live, or the laws of that country. That agreement gives you permission to install the software on ONE computer. If you violate the terms of that agreement, and you install the software on multiple computers, YOU have just taken "something that belongs to someone else,"
No, can't take something I already have and contract disputes are not crimes.


Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was made about it being a single license.

If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you.

No, I have used one license more than once that I paid for. There is no "new" license.

It does not have to be a crime to be stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone else."

It has to exist doesn't it?

The additional installations you do on your other computers are taking a license from Microsoft, because the ONE license you bought and now "have" only covers ONE installation.

Not the law but the EULA.

Any installations beyond that ONE are taking from Microsoft.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?

You do not "have" multiple licenses. You admited that it would be a contract dispute. Why would it be? Duh, because YOU are violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more than one computer.

Which is not illegal or a crime where I live or don't you respect local customs?

So, again, you are taking something that does not belong to you.

How can you take something that doesn't exist?

You are stealing. And again, so you can comprehend the concept, it does not have to be illegal, a crime, or whatever term you choose to give it in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and stealing, regardless of where you live.

That's your subjective opinion, not one shared by the Spanish judges. Are your opinions above the law?

If Microsoft is not being paid each time that XP gets installed on a separate computer, then it is not fair to them, and by definition is NOT "fair use."

Not true.

Your unethical country's interpretation of "fair use" is flawed.

Um, it's the *legal* interpretation.

Something that is "fair" has to benefit BOTH parties involved in order to meet the definition of fairness, which software piracy (copying) does not do.

MS got its money for the CD I bought. They should expect any more than that.

Once again, yes, you DO advocate taking something that does not belong to you, by advocating that it is OK to install licenses which you do not "have." What you "have" is a single license to use the software on ONE computer. ANY use beyond that is taking "something that belongs to someone else."

Gregg

You are really stretching it. This is commonly called "back pedaling".

Alias
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
    ... Please tell me what you consider to be stealing. ... break the End User License Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is ... something that belongs to someone else. ... That agreement gives you permission to install ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: install java
    ... Sun Microsystems, Inc. Binary Code License Agreement ... INC. IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE SOFTWARE ... OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE DOWNLOAD OR INSTALL PROCESS WILL NOT CONTINUE. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Installing a new OS, but have ?
    ... Windows XP and later OSes have that prevent you from breaking the agreement ... The agreement has always been the same. ... purchase one license, you get to utilize that one license on one machine. ... things are different - but one thing is that once you install Windows XP OEM ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: License issue with Fedora
    ... ]>]The dead rat license restricts support to one machine. ... They sold you a license. ... ]> licenses if you install on separate machines. ... ]purchased under this Agreement and defined herein. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
    ... Typical of you to reply to only a portion of my comment before the point was made about it being a single license. ... If you install your single license on MULTIPLE computers, you have taken a license that does not belong to you. ... stealing, or in your words, taking "...something that belongs to someone else." ... because YOU are violating the contract you have with Microsoft if you install it on more than one computer. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)