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

Nina,

What I have been trying to get you to understand is that something DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE ILLEGAL in order for it to be unethical, immoral, and wrong.
Breaking a contract may not be a crime, but it IS unethical.

I gave the example of one living on a small island with no laws of any kind.
If you have a TV (solar powered and satellite!) and your neighbor walks in
and takes it, **it is stealing** from you, in spite of the fact that your
island has no laws. If you are on that island without laws, and your
neighbor comes in one night and forces his penis inside you, did he do
something wrong? Yes, he committed rape, in spite of there not being a law
in place. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that fact?

How do you think laws came to exist? Ethical people had something wrong done
to them, that's how and why. The person doing it typically sees nothing
wrong with the action, whether it be stealing an apple or clubbing someone
to death when he cheats at cards and takes four dollars. "I was hungry!" "He
took my money!" Both valid excuses, right?

In the case of the island example, what do you think would be the next step?
Laws would be created to tell unethical people NOT to take someone else's TV
or to force sex on someone else (and I know that is a GROSS understatement
of rape). An ethical person does not need to be told that something is wrong
in order not to do it. No one has to tell me that rape, murder, robbery, or
having sex with eight year old girls are wrong and illegal in my country in
order for me not to engage in such practices. If it were completely legal, I
still would not do it, because it harms the other person. An ethical person
understands that. If I lived in Afghanistan during Taliban times, I
**could** have raped and pillaged to my heart's content without punishment.
Would I do it, just because I **could** do it? Of course not! That is what
ethics is...knowing the difference without need of law to tell me. Why do
you think adult perverts go to other countries to have sex with small
children? Because they CAN, without punishment. Does that make it right,
just because it is not illegal?

Societies create laws to protect people from such behavior, to give us a way
to stop unethical people from freely roaming about doing as they please.
Sometimes the laws are overboard, sometimes not.

In the case of the EULA and XP, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has posted in here
knows the INTENT of the EULA, and they know it is intended to be installed
on ONE computer per license purchased. An ethical person does not make
excuses and say that they have a "fair use" right, or "it's only a
contract," or "it isn't illegal" to justify going against what they know is
the intent of the EULA, that is, to limit the installation to one computer.
An ethical person does not agree to a contract and then "bend" or break that
contract without compensating the one with whom they have contracted.

Breaking the EULA has the same monetary effect on the manufacturer as if the
pirate took the product out of their warehouse. The bank account of the
manufacturer does not increase, the pirate's account does not decrease, and
you call that fair? I think your view of fairness is a bit off. Most of the
time I have had this discussion, people who advocate breaking the EULA
cannot fathom that the definition of theft does not require something to be
above a certain monetary value in order for it to count. All they see is
that Bill has BILLIONS of dollars and "he does not deserve any more." Yet
when I point out to them that a homeless bum on the street thinks YOU have
too much money and should part with it, they don't see it that way any more.
When I turn the table and have the loss of income affect THEM, suddenly they
don't think it is right.

How much money Bill has is not the issue. The issue is that his company
created the product, offered it to anyone who wants to purchase it
VOLUNTARILY, and all he asks is that you abide by the conditions of his
making that offer, i.e., that you install it on only one computer per
license purchased. Those are the conditions under which he offered you the
chance to buy the software. Whether he makes one dollar per sale or $400 per
sale is irrelevant. It is offered at a one-for-one purchase (one license,
one installation), and no one should go against that, just because they
don't like the company or they think he already has enough money, whether or
not the laws of your country claim that you can. Again, an ethical person is
not governed by legal systems or contracts to tell him what is right or
wrong. The ethical person knows that Bill is offering a one-for-one product,
and abides by that condition, regardless of the amount of money that Bill
already has, knowing that his worth is irrelevant.

I forget who it was who first bought up the "fair use" and casual copying
(Alias?). He claimed that it was OK in his country as long as there was "no
financial" gain on the part of the one doing the copying. He has yet to
refute my comment that if he buys one and installs it four times, he HAS
GAINED FINANCIALLY on three of those installations by NOT having his bank
account decreased, therefore the "fair use" does not apply. You do not have
to **sell** the other three installations in order to realize a financial
gain.

Well, I have spent more time than I ever thought I would trying to get those
points across. Now I am going to bow out and respond no further. No, that
does not mean that I somehow have changed my beliefs or that I can no longer
defend my position. It merely means that I have no more time to waste trying
to do so. I have work to do, I have a wife whom I ignored for the entire
time I have taken to pound keys with all of you, and I am thoroughly
convinced that most you are not going to grasp the fundamental concept of
ethics, no matter what I say. I am also convinced that NO AMOUNT of reason
will get you to stop seeing Microsoft as the Devil and justifying your
actions because you think MS is so bad that it allows you to go against the
EULA for XP.

That being said, have fun flaming me.

Gregg Hill




"Nina DiBoy" <no@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ejae70$69p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gregg Hill wrote:
The courts can never do the sentencing because the TV thief never got
caught. Most pirates never get caught, but they still pirated the
software.

True about the TV, but it still illegal. Bending or breaking the EULA is
not illegal.

Stealing in all forms is illegal. Breaking a contract or having a
contract dispute is not stealing, and it is not illegal.


I never did accuse everyone of being a thief, only those who use one
license to install on many computers, regardless of whether or not they
get got, and whether or not anyone sees them click to agree to the EULA.

Gregg Hill "caver1" <what@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:szP5h.26967$pq4.26399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Gregg Hill wrote:

If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?

Gregg Hill

Yes but it is the courts that do the sentencing. Also you don't accuse
everyone of being the thief just because they walked into your store.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WinXP legality issue. Advice please.
    ... I am not surprised at Bruce talking about what an eula has to do with the law but I am a bit amazed that Alex who is in England does. ... For the record here in the UK a company does not make the laws but Parliament do. ... It was not a condition of the original sale that I so be. ... It is not as I have stated contract terms imposed retrospectvly are invalid Here in UK and our statutary rights cannot be over written by a company and in any case in the UK you do not have any type of contract with a manufacturer so attempting to make you agree to a license to use something bought condition free from a retail shop is a nonsense and cannot be enforced. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Buying a new copy of XP
    ... Laws very from country to ... > On Carey's contract part saying it contract laws. ... A eula you have to hit ok to agree to the so called ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • [Full-Disclosure] FW: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 now
    ... > contract that is simply presented in front of you, ... All CD's are sealed, and if you open the seal, you agree with the EULA. ... but you can open the CD case on the other side, without breaking ... how that would be regarding laws ... ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
    ... Gregg Hill wrote: ... Read your EULA, the one to which you must agree before you use the software. ... You have purchased the **right to use** ONE installation of the code on the CD. ... That may be true but US courts have stated that EULAs cannot abridge first sale doctrine of fair use laws. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: 3cd Major Openings
    ... "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - American Edition ... As Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the AMERICAN CONTRACT ... Definitions - Convention ... major suit opening is NOTconventional. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)