All those running pirated Windows XP - read this!

[MisterBombastic]

Originally posted by: bsobel

How does that work out? How is copying without distribution for profit stealing? If one would not have purchased the product in the first place, how could making a copy of it for personal use be stealing? Since you seem to have an affinity to mouth off without backing up your idiotic statements with anything that approaches fact, you bsobel are the idiot.

Wow, when you get to high school, please take some introduction to the law class. It's quiet amazing you have no simple grasp of legal prinicipals. Copyright law does not require distribution for infringment to occur (of course, in your example, distribution did occur, otherwise where did you get your copy?). What part of this don't you understand? My backup for my 'idiotic statements' is U.S. law, what, btw, is yours?

Bill

I didn't go to 'high school' and never will as I don't live in the US. US law does not back up your statements. US law (including State law) is hauling Microsofts arse into court for illegal monopolistic practises.

Microsofts EULA is automatically invalidated anyway as in order to read it, one must not only purchase the software, but open it and run it too.

If I distributed it to myself, and I never intended to purchase it, what harm am I doing?

 

[Workin']

I don't mind paying for a copy of Windows for my computer, but it's totally rediculous if I want to change my hardware around or sell a computer and buy another one. Why should I have to buy another software license when I already have one? Sure, I could sell my copy of WinXP with my computer, but why should I have to take a hit on opened software and then turn around and buy new again?

Hey Sal, if you buy a RETAIL copy of WinXP you can install it on your computer, then when you sell that computer you can delete WinXP off it and install it on your new computer. No problem, pretty much what a reasonable person would expect, I think. But if you buy an OEM copy of WinXP then that copy is forever "married" to the computer it came on or was first installed on. So for example if you buy a Dell computer w/WinXP you can't ever legally install that copy on any other machine, period.

If I distributed it to myself, and I never intended to purchase it, what harm am I doing?

How do you distribute it to yourself??? It had to come from somewhere, and therein lies the crime. The fact that you never intended to purchase it means nothing, you are just trying to rationalize your behavior so you don't have to face the fact that you stole it. Just by making that rationalization implicitly acknowledges that you know it is wrong.

 

[sc0tty8]

I like my winXP stable. Thats win2k for you people that need the pretty colors and n00b help ballons.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: sc0tty8
I like my winXP stable. Thats win2k for you people that need the pretty colors and n00b help ballons.

and drivers built in for tons of things, and program compatability, and remote desktop connection, and MSVDM, and fast user switching, and it boots faster.....

-Spy

 

[Salvador]

Hey Sal, if you buy a RETAIL copy of WinXP you can install it on your computer, then when you sell that computer you can delete WinXP off it and install it on your new computer. No problem, pretty much what a reasonable person would expect, I think. But if you buy an OEM copy of WinXP then that copy is forever "married" to the computer it came on or was first installed on. So for example if you buy a Dell computer w/WinXP you can't ever legally install that copy on any other machine, period.

I did not know that. I thought that WPA limited you to the number of times that you could even switch hardware.

I don't think any OS will get much better as long as MS is around. There's just no money to be made doing it. If someone tried, they'd just be run out of business by MS. That's wrong.

Sal

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Salvador
I did not know that. I thought that WPA limited you to the number of times that you could even switch hardware.

Sal- it does if you change the hardware on the machine, however that can be fixed by a call to MS.
As far as installing it on a new computer when you try and install it you would just contact MS by phone and tell them you formated and got rid of the old computer and than bought a new one, they than let you activate it on a new computer.

-Spy

 

[bsobel]

> I did not know that. I thought that WPA limited you to the number of times that you could even switch hardware

Your limited in the number of times you can switch hardware without having to re-activate. They won't stop you, however, from reactivating on new hardware (say your example of you buying a new machine).

Bill

 

[MisterBombastic]

Originally posted by: Workin'

How do you distribute it to yourself??? It had to come from somewhere, and therein lies the crime. The fact that you never intended to purchase it means nothing, you are just trying to rationalize your behavior so you don't have to face the fact that you stole it. Just by making that rationalization implicitly acknowledges that you know it is wrong.

How do would I distribute it to myself? Don't you understand simple sentences? If I copied it for myself, I would be distributing it to myself, yet how would I be stealing? You haven't backed up your opinion with any facts. Stealing implies there is a victim that loses property. What has Microsoft lost if I copied Windows for myself?

My behaviour is rational, I do not have to rationalise it. I put this conundrum out there for people to answer. If you can't answer, don't. Your opinion matters not without proof. If there was an indisputable law in your infallible constitution which covers my point, please tell me of it.

 

[kurt454]

[/quote]Hey Sal, if you buy a RETAIL copy of WinXP you can install it on your computer, then when you sell that computer you can delete WinXP off it and install it on your new computer. No problem, pretty much what a reasonable person would expect, I think. But if you buy an OEM copy of WinXP then that copy is forever "married" to the computer it came on or was first installed on. So for example if you buy a Dell computer w/WinXP you can't ever legally install that copy on any other machine, period.

Actually, If you get a Dell PC, you will get a system restore cd, which is worthless for anything other than a Dell. If you buy an OEM Windows XP cd, with a piece of hardware, you are getting the same thing as retail except without the pretty box, worthless manual, or equally worthless phone support from microsoft. It has no worse restriction on WPA than retail. OEM is all I ever buy.

 

[spyordie007]

MisterBombastic-

It's call IP laws (Intelectual Property), and copyright laws. Copying sofware from them is no differant than copying music, copying patents. Your stealing something that someone made (an idea) not something physical, I dont know what country you live it but I'm sure they have copyright laws. Your arguement that copying it is not stealing it is very narrow minded and I hope that someday you either grow up or you spend a long time inventing something and than someone else copies your idea (steals it from you) so you can see why there are such things as copyright laws and patients.

-Spy

 

[Workin']

How do would I distribute it to myself? Don't you understand simple sentences? If I copied it for myself, I would be distributing it to myself, yet how would I be stealing?

Sorry, I guess you are more brain damaged than I thought. Exactly where does the original you are copying come from? Do you pull it out of your rectal cavity? Unless you were copying a CD that you paid for, the disc image or download or whatever is stolen, and therefore your copy is stolen. I don't know how to make it any more clear. Maybe English is not your native language, I don't know...

As far as the restore CD images you get from some PC vendors, it's no big deal from a licensing standpoint, that actually enforces the "no transfer" provisions of the OEM license. Remember, the OEM license applies only to the original computer, so there is no reason whatsover that the restore CD should let you install the OS on any other PC. It does suck that they erase everything on your computer when you use them, though. But blame Compaq or whoever for those troubles, not MS.

A legally installed OEM copy of Windows that comes with "unrestricted installation media" (that's a Windows CD to you and me) REQUIRES you to affix the Certifcate of Authenticity tag to the machine the OS is installed on - so again, there is no way to legally transfer the license to another PC. However, you can call MS and fib that your new machine is just a "hardware upgrade" so that they'll let you do WPA again, but without the COA sticker attached to the PC case you don't have a legal copy, even if you deleted it off your old machine.

edit:

If you buy an OEM Windows XP cd, with a piece of hardware, you are getting the same thing as retail except without the pretty box, worthless manual, or equally worthless phone support from microsoft.

Not exactly true.

A "retail" WinXP license can legally be transferred to a replacement PC. The COA is a piece of paper that can sit in your desk drawer. If you throw the PC in the trash, you still have a Windows license.

An OEM WinXP license can not be legally transferred to a different PC. The COA is a sticker permanently attached to the PC. If you throw the PC in the trash, the Windows license goes in the trash with it.

That's a significant difference for some folks.

 

[MisterBombastic]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
MisterBombastic-

It's call IP laws (Intelectual Property), and copyright laws. Copying sofware from them is no differant than copying music, copying patents. Your stealing something that someone made (an idea) not something physical, I dont know what country you live it but I'm sure they have copyright laws. Your arguement that copying it is not stealing it is very narrow minded and I hope that someday you either grow up or you spend a long time inventing something and than someone else copies your idea (steals it from you) so you can see why there are such things as copyright laws and patients.

-Spy

But here's the rub. The EULA which outlines the copyright and the fact that one is 'licensed' the software and doesn't own it, is only accessible after the software is bought, unpackaged and run. It is therefore invalid, and people have gone to court over it. Not to mention that stores as a whole refuse to refund money on opened software, so how can one refuse the EULA?

Don't take pot shots at me because we have a differing of opinion (telling me to 'grow up'). It undermines your intelligence.

Workin', please get your head out of your arse and at least attempt to show you have the ability to challenge my points rather than trying to insult me. If you had a shred of intelligence, we would be having a discussion. Instead you act like a maniac.

 

[spyordie007]

so how can one refuse the EULA?

not get the software (buying it, stealing it, or otherwise)

The EULA which outlines the copyright and the fact that one is 'licensed' the software and doesn't own it, is only accessible after the software is bought, unpackaged and run. It is therefore invalid

I suppose the arguement could be made that you can read the EULA without running the installer, most software companies have the EULA in a doc on the CD that you could read before installing. However saying that you are exempt from the EULA because you didnt buy doesnt make it right to take a pirated copy. you cant say that because they have their EULA setup wrong it is okay for you to makes as many copys of it as you want, 2 wrongs dont make a right.

-Spy

 

[Workin']

Workin', please get your head out of your arse and at least attempt to show you have the ability to challenge my points rather than trying to insult me. If you had a shred of intelligence, we would be having a discussion. Instead you act like a maniac.

I didn't insult you, YOU insulted ME! But then again, judging by your "points", I'm not dealing with someone who has a very strong grip on logic or cause and effect. Now I'll insult you - you moron!

I think everything that needs to be said about this has been said. It's going to be hard, but I'm just going to let it drop now.

 

[Sunner]

Geez, please, why can't you people ever let this thread die?

I considder the OS forum as one of the more civilized forums in the anarchy that is AT, but this really makes me question that.

Even people I respect(most notably in this thread, n0c) are reducing themselves to AOL levels of conversation.

Lets just all agree to disagree, let the mods lock this piece of crap, and move on, for the sake of keeping the OS forum free from these threads.

 

[kurt454]

A legally installed OEM copy of Windows that comes with "unrestricted installation media" (that's a Windows CD to you and me) REQUIRES you to affix the Certifcate of Authenticity tag to the machine the OS is installed on - so again, there is no way to legally transfer the license to another PC. However, you can call MS and fib that your new machine is just a "hardware upgrade" so that they'll let you do WPA again, but without the COA sticker attached to the PC case you don't have a legal copy, even if you deleted it off your old machine.



A "retail" WinXP license can legally be transferred to a replacement PC. The COA is a piece of paper that can sit in your desk drawer. If you throw the PC in the trash, you still have a Windows license.

An OEM WinXP license can not be legally transferred to a different PC. The COA is a sticker permanently attached to the PC. If you throw the PC in the trash, the Windows license goes in the trash with it.

That's a significant difference for some folks.[/quote]

I did not know that about the sticker. It is in my desk drawer. I am a hardware enthusiast. My 'new' PC will be in the same case. Thanks for straightening that out.

 

[MisterBombastic]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

so how can one refuse the EULA?

not get the software (buying it, stealing it, or otherwise)

The EULA which outlines the copyright and the fact that one is 'licensed' the software and doesn't own it, is only accessible after the software is bought, unpackaged and run. It is therefore invalid

I suppose the arguement could be made that you can read the EULA without running the installer, most software companies have the EULA in a doc on the CD that you could read before installing. However saying that you are exempt from the EULA because you didnt buy doesnt make it right to take a pirated copy. you cant say that because they have their EULA setup wrong it is okay for you to makes as many copys of it as you want, 2 wrongs dont make a right.

-Spy

I haven't seen any information that proves without doubt that copying a piece of software for personal use can be classed as stealing. The EULA comes into it, when even if one refuses to accept the license agreement, one still can't return the opened and used software (running the CD is classed as use). So, considering that digital agreements don't share the same status as actual signatures on paper, if one is forced to accept the EULA because the software cannot be returned, then the EULA would be invalid. It is also invalid (as said before) because one must run the software to agree or disagree. If then the copyright statement in the EULA is invalid because it is forced, then how can it be violating copyright to copy the software?

I like your signature spyordie!

Workin' is a twat.

 

[Rainsford]

I haven't seen any information that proves without doubt that copying a piece of software for personal use can be classed as stealing. The EULA comes into it, when even if one refuses to accept the license agreement, one still can't return the opened and used software (running the CD is classed as use). So, considering that digital agreements don't share the same status as actual signatures on paper, if one is forced to accept the EULA because the software cannot be returned, then the EULA would be invalid. It is also invalid (as said before) because one must run the software to agree or disagree. If then the copyright statement in the EULA is invalid because it is forced, then how can it be violating copyright to copy the software?

I like your signature spyordie!

Workin' is a twat.

No one is forcing you to agree to the EULA. You must do so to use the software, however, you do not "have' to accept the agreement. You, of your own free will, agree to follow the EULA when you run the software. If you violate the EULA, and you have agreed to it (which you must to violate it), then you are breaking the law. It's as simple as that.

 

[MisterBombastic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

No one is forcing you to agree to the EULA. You must do so to use the software, however, you do not "have' to accept the agreement. You, of your own free will, agree to follow the EULA when you run the software. If you violate the EULA, and you have agreed to it (which you must to violate it), then you are breaking the law. It's as simple as that.

The whole point is that one is forced to agree to the EULA. One must open and run the software in order to read the EULA in the first place. Thus, if you do not agree to the EULA, you have already violated its terms by running the software in the first place! This loop hole makes the EULA invalid.

Also, is any store likely to refund your money if you do not agree to the EULA? If not, then you are forced, under the duress of losing the money you paid for the software, to accept the EULA.

In court, a statement of confession obtained under duress is automatically invalid. If you are forced to accept the terms Microsoft lays down to you by loop holes, then those terms are illegal and immoral.

From the amount of pro Microsoft comments here, I can see why the company was left unhindered to monopolise the market. Many people here seem to believe in capitalism at all costs.

 

[wjsulliv]

Not like it appears that anybody will care at all about this, seeing as all your doing is bickering back and fourth, and waisting this thread, but...

I was at microcenter today and was looking at a Sony Laptop running XP Pro. After reading this thread, I decided I would check the build, and it turned out it was the same build as my XP Pro, 2600. Which turns out to be the same as my friends from his large legally liscensed company, a microsoft partner as it turns out.

So I'm still confused as to how they are going to successfully do this checking and shutting down of peoples computers?

Especially considering the following:
The first person/business running a legal install of XP who has their computer shut down by this update, will sue microsoft to hell and back, for crashing their computer and messing up their files/business.


They will have to do what ever it is they are going to do very carefully, and may have to include a warning like, "We believe your version of XP was not legally obtained, procede at your own risk", when installing the update.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: wjsulliv
Not like it appears that anybody will care at all about this, seeing as all your doing is bickering back and fourth, and waisting this thread, but...
I was at microcenter today and was looking at a Sony Laptop running XP Pro. After reading this thread, I decided I would check the build, and it turned out it was the same build as my XP Pro, 2600. Which turns out to be the same as my friends from his large legally liscensed company, a microsoft partner as it turns out.
So I'm still confused as to how they are going to successfully do this checking and shutting down of peoples computers?
Especially considering the following:
The first person/business running a legal install of XP who has their computer shut down by this update, will sue microsoft to hell and back, for crashing their computer and messing up their files/business.
They will have to do what ever it is they are going to do very carefully, and may have to include a warning like, "We believe your version of XP was not legally obtained, procede at your own risk", when installing the update.

Of course they are all buld 2600 (albeit some with slightly different licensing components). The license key the system sees is what the patches will likely block on, for example there is a really well known corporate key (well, a number of them) floating around. Those corps have already received 'new' license keys. Any system using one of the 'stolen' keys won't be able to apply the updates.

As for being carefull or being sued, Microsoft started doing this with Office updates a long time ago. They know what they are doing (regardless if you agree with it). All those 'legal' issues to mention just aren't issues.

Bill

 

[sc0tty8]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: sc0tty8
I like my winXP stable. Thats win2k for you people that need the pretty colors and n00b help ballons.

and drivers built in for tons of things, and program compatability, and remote desktop connection, and MSVDM, and fast user switching, and it boots faster.....

-Spy

There are drivers for win2k, M$ will continue to develop drivers for YEARS to come. win95 is now officially a NON supported peice of software by M$. It takes about 5-6 years at least before drivers are no longer made. I got program capabilty no prob. Once again, it takes some time for it to get bumped off. Flip over a popular software title and it will tell you it can run on win98, some even win95. I do not require remote desktop connection, if I need it, I got PC anywhere and a few other programs for remote admin. MSVDM...dunno what it is, but, I do not think I require it now. Fast user swithcing. I am the only one that uses this computer, only needs 1 user, me, the administrator. Boots faster...My comp is always going, only goes down to add/remove hardware(wich I do a lot) so XP looses there. I also sustane an average uptime of 3-4 weeks. I want to upgrade w/o having to be concerned if I am doing it too frequently for winblows. The rate I go, I would be to my quota on XP. I have tried it, and I thought it was one of the most bloated overrated peices of software out there. I do not like the pretty colors or any of the other stuff. I have tried many programs to get rid of it and optimize performance. I was not thrilled to say the least.

As for M$, they made the mistake of saying that this OS, winxp(corp/home/pirate/pro) was going to be "pirate" resistant. this, is what caused their issues. They said something would not or would be difficult to do, so people got to work and got workarounds. I also heard that there are on avereage about 3 patches that come out a week, some of wich, undo previous patches. To teach his own I guess.

 

[crisp82]

Fact 1: Stealing/Pirating happens. Deal with it
Fact 2: Possibly the biggest irony in the world. Microsoft accuses people of stealing their product, when they stole the graphical operating system off of Apple way back when - Go Figure

Chris

Ps. grow up people, no point getting stressed over a concept that has been around since the begininng of time and will be there till the end of it.

 

[crisp82]

Bump

 

[bsobel]

As for M$, they made the mistake of saying that this OS, winxp(corp/home/pirate/pro) was going to be "pirate" resistant

It is pirate resistant which is different than pirate proof. Pirate resistant is obtainable (depending on your definition of resistant of course), pirate proof is not obtainable. MS knows the difference. They've done a good job of hitting the casual copier (one who would buy 1 copy of the OS and then share it with a few people). They knew this scheme would never keep the 'active' pirate (such as some people on this thread) from running the OS. I haven't seen the estimates from MS in quite some time, but the hit for the casual copier was enough (extra income) to justify the whole thing (justify it to them).

Originally posted by: crisp82
Bump

You think you need to bump this thread? NEF.
Bill