Illegal XP owners beware, Microsoft has quite a suprise planned

[HendrixFan]

You are wrong pulse. Copyright for music is clear. It is the audio you hear. Anything that lyrically "rips off" a song, or steals a melody are in violation, muchless the specific recording. However, that deals only with for profit uses of music.

I know what EULAs state, but they are not upheld by law. Microsoft doesnt have a copyright on your install, but if you have evidence to prove otherwise, please show it. They certainly have NOT COPYRIGHTED THEIR CODE. They keep that under tight watch and would never release it for a copyright. Its too valuable to them. What is installed on the hard drive is not what comes on the disc, neither of which is source. What you take from a book you read and retain is not what is in the book, which is what is copyrighted. This is exactly what Jefferson was talking about.

Even still, explain how my microwave analogy is invalid.

Enough jabs at my education Amused one. I go to a Tier I university and maintained a 4.0 for the first 45 hours I took. I dont remember the book I read it from, that was 3 years ago. I scored an 800 on the math section of my SAT, and got an A in Set Theory, and the professor teaching the course had written the book we used in class. I know Set Theory well enough that I hope/plan on adding it as an elective in the high school I end up at after I graduate. I understand its importance, and hopefully (though I certainly dont expect it) I will one day be able to get the curriculum changed so that set theory is taught from Kindergarten up, instead of putting emphasis on arithmatic.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
GW is from history class, read quite a bit, learned quite a bit in History I (good professor), but not History II (bad professor).

What does MS have a patent on? The binaries on the disc? Or what you have installed on your hard drive? If it is the disc, you dont need to uninstall it whenever you "lend" a copy to a friend or if you sell it. If its the install on the hard drive, then why are we even worried about people sharing discs? Because you and I both know what is installed is what you derive from the disc, and is not what is on the disc at all. They are two seperate things.

Man, your logic is so twisted.

Forget patents, but whatever is on that disc and whatever is installed onto your system from that disc is under copyright by Microsoft. What is so hard to understand about that? They built the code, they put it together and packaged it, it's their code.

If someone writes a song, records the song, puts it on a CD, someone buys that CD and puts it on their computer in mp3 format and then shares it, they aren't getting around copyright laws. Copyright laws are NOT specific to the medium they are on.

Pulse, the funny part about this is in my post above.

Whoa! I thought he was talking about George W. Bush. I didn't bother to read where it came from because I don't do political debates.

It's quite the interesting story he learned, however. I think his teacher was married to Morgan Fairchild, too. :Q

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
You are wrong pulse. Copyright for music is clear. It is the audio you hear. Anything that lyrically "rips off" a song, or steals a melody are in violation, muchless the specific recording. However, that deals only with for profit uses of music.

I know what EULAs state, but they are not upheld by law. Microsoft doesnt have a copyright on your install, but if you have evidence to prove otherwise, please show it. They certainly have NOT COPYRIGHTED THEIR CODE. They keep that under tight watch and would never release it for a copyright. Its too valuable to them. What is installed on the hard drive is not what comes on the disc, neither of which is source. What you take from a book you read and retain is not what is in the book, which is what is copyrighted. This is exactly what Jefferson was talking about.

Even still, explain how my microwave analogy is invalid.

Enough jabs at my education Amused one. I go to a Tier I university and maintained a 4.0 for the first 45 hours I took. I dont remember the book I read it from, that was 3 years ago. I scored an 800 on the math section of my SAT, and got an A in Set Theory, and the professor teaching the course had written the book we used in class. I know Set Theory well enough that I hope/plan on adding it as an elective in the high school I end up at after I graduate. I understand its importance, and hopefully (though I certainly dont expect it) I will one day be able to get the curriculum changed so that set theory is taught from Kindergarten up, instead of putting emphasis on arithmatic.

huh? Explain to me how notes in music differ from code in software?

If someone ripped off Microsoft's code, they could sure as hell sue for copyright violations! And something doesn't have to be submitted to the government in order to have a copyright. I can write some code that no one else has written, put it in an envelope, send it to myself via certified mail, never open it and that would hold up as a copyright.

Also, explain to me how what I install on my hard drive, isn't what is on the disc. As far as I know, the files in the i386 installation directory are exactly the same, just missing a letter in the file extension. Or are you saying that because the code is compiled, it is no longer the original source code and thus does not fall under copyright laws?

As for what you're saying about what you take from a book isn't what's in the book, I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[docmanhattan]

amusedone
what is with you and insulting the people you're arguing. it's almost pathelogical the way you manage to make a personal attack on your oppenent in every reply. why don't you stick to addressing the questions and the topic of thread and refrain from ad hom claims and personal attacks. it would make you sound a lot less ignorant and irrational.

HendrixFan's basis for what he's saying is a bit of center but at least he manages to argue his point without making personal attacks.

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
GW is from history class, read quite a bit, learned quite a bit in History I (good professor), but not History II (bad professor).

Please provide another source for this claim.

I beginning to see what's wrong here. In another thread you defended public education and presented yourself as a fine example of it. I would suggest you no longer do that in the future as it would only prove the opposition's point.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: docmanhattan
amusedone
what is with you and insulting the people you're arguing. it's almost pathelogical the way you manage to make a personal attack on your oppenent in every reply. why don't you stick to addressing the questions and the topic of thread and refrain from ad hom claims and personal attacks. it would make you sound a lot less ignorant and irrational.

HendrixFan's basis for what he's saying is a bit of center but at least he manages to argue his point without making personal attacks.

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
GW is from history class, read quite a bit, learned quite a bit in History I (good professor), but not History II (bad professor).

Please provide another source for this claim.

I beginning to see what's wrong here. In another thread you defended public education and presented yourself as a fine example of it. I would suggest you no longer do that in the future as it would only prove the opposition's point.

Doc, when someone derives their information and opinions from nothing less than complete quackery, there is no rational debate. For me, the debate is over.

 

[Johnbear007]

If the debate is over for you, then shut up. Ad hominum attacks are unjustified regardless of your personal evalutaion of a persons rationality.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
If the debate is over for you, then shut up. Ad hominum attacks are unjustified regardless of your personal evalutaion of a persons rationality.

Wow, when was I supposed to take debating orders from you? I never got the memo.

When I see absurdity, I point it out. If you don't like it, tough sh!t.

 

[NFS4]

I still find it hard to believe that people STILL think it's OK to pirate WinXP just b/c MS is a monopoly. Monopoly or not, pay for the sh!t or don't use it. PERIOD!

 

[Johnbear007]

As ive said before, I dont pirate software myself, but Ill never understand why some people insist on equating morality with legality. When hitler rolled across europe, he was the 'law' yet I dont think the death camps were jsutifiable. I know that is an extreme example... I suppose instead one could go back to the robin hood situation... the point being something isnt wrong just because it is illegal. It may be illegal and happen to also be wrong but being illegal doesnt make it automatically immoral. Some people feel that Microsoft is an 'evil' company that has abused its power, and run other companies out of business with their cut throat (and ILLEGAL by coincidence business practices) so in turn, some see as taking from MS as not so bad, as biting the devil where you can, when you can. I dont personally believe this is right, however I think its ignorant, short sited, and close minded to simply assert your own moral code upon everyone else. Its fine to say that you think they are wrong, and to disagree with them, but what isnt fine are the constant insults towards one another.......

anyway, im not sure why I wasted time writing that, as with everyone thing else done here, im sure ill just be insulted for it.....

unsubscribing from the thread now, so if you really feel the need to tell me how much you think I suck and how much better/smarter/morally minded you are, youll have to PM me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
As ive said before, I dont pirate software myself, but Ill never understand why some people insist on equating morality with legality. When hitler rolled across europe, he was the 'law' yet I dont think the death camps were jsutifiable. I know that is an extreme example... I suppose instead one could go back to the robin hood situation... the point being something isnt wrong just because it is illegal. It may be illegal and happen to also be wrong but being illegal doesnt make it automatically immoral. Some people feel that Microsoft is an 'evil' company that has abused its power, and run other companies out of business with their cut throat (and ILLEGAL by coincidence business practices) so in turn, some see as taking from MS as not so bad, as biting the devil where you can, when you can. I dont personally believe this is right, however I think its ignorant, short sited, and close minded to simply assert your own moral code upon everyone else. Its fine to say that you think they are wrong, and to disagree with them, but what isnt fine are the constant insults towards one another.......

anyway, im not sure why I wasted time writing that, as with everyone thing else done here, im sure ill just be insulted for it.....

unsubscribing from the thread now, so if you really feel the need to tell me how much you think I suck and how much better/smarter/morally minded you are, youll have to PM me.

This is extremely simple to grasp. It is wrong morally to benefit from the labor of another against their will and/or without paying for it. It really is that simple. Doing so denies a person or company their right to be reimbursed for their goods and/or services. Claiming your own right to their intellectual property while denying the other person their rights is morally wrong, and must remain so.

None of the people here would ever think of doing this to an individual, or their best friend (at least I hope not). The fact that Microsoft is big and wealthy does not change the ethical code here. If ethics become situational, who draws those lines? At what point does a person become wealthy enough, or a company big enough and/or offensive enough that it becomes ethical to steal from them?

This is not a matter of a person simply pushing personal morals about victimless vice on others. This is a societal issue that affects everyone. Theft is a crime with a victim. The claim that Microsoft is big, evil, greedy, and charges too much for their goods, therefore they deserve to have their products stolen is akin to saying "the bitch wore a short skirt, so she deserved to be raped."

 

[NFS4]

Theft is a crime with a victim. The claim that Microsoft is big, evil, greedy, and charges too much for their goods, therefore they deserve to have their products stolen is akin to saying "the bitch wore a short skirt, so she deserved to be raped."

Graphic, but true.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Theft is a crime with a victim. The claim that Microsoft is big, evil, greedy, and charges too much for their goods, therefore they deserve to have their products stolen is akin to saying "the bitch wore a short skirt, so she deserved to be raped."

Graphic, but true.

Yeah, I know. :frown: I gotta work on that and learn how to be more diplomatic. I blame my time in the army

 

[Vegito]

well, my company just paid 26,000 for licensing for 25 user for wxp/oxp/server craps.. it's really expensive... we're switching almost everything we can to linux.. they sux.

 

[Red Dawn]

Theft is a crime with a victim. The claim that Microsoft is big, evil, greedy, and charges too much for their goods, therefore they deserve to have their products stolen is akin to saying "the bitch wore a short skirt, so she deserved to be raped."

Bullsh!t. Rape is a violent act against an individual which may result in physical and/or emotional harm to that individual. Pirating Software from MS will only lessen the profitability of a faceless legal organization whose sole purpose is to make money for its investors. There is no valid comparison between the rape of an individual and an act that make an organization less profitable.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Theft is a crime with a victim. The claim that Microsoft is big, evil, greedy, and charges too much for their goods, therefore they deserve to have their products stolen is akin to saying "the bitch wore a short skirt, so she deserved to be raped."

Bullsh!t. Rape is a violent act against an individual which may result in physical and/or emotional harm to that individual. Pirating Software from MS will only lessen the profitability of a faceless legal organization whose sole purpose is to make money for its investors. There is no valid comparison between the rape of an individual and an act that make an organization less profitable.

Both are crimes with victims. I made no comparison between the severity of the crime, only a comparison of victimless crimes verses crimes with victims. And made an extreme case of what blaming the victim looks like. I guess it begs thequestion, is it ever OK to blame the victim of a crime. If so, who makes that determination?

And I ask yet again, at what point does a person become wealthy enough, or a company big enough and/or offensive enough that it becomes ethical to steal from them?

 

[Murphyrulez]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
GW is from history class, read quite a bit, learned quite a bit in History I (good professor), but not History II (bad professor).

Please provide another source for this claim.

I beginning to see what's wrong here. In another thread you defended public education and presented yourself as a fine example of it. I would suggest you no longer do that in the future as it would only prove the opposition's point.

Just for the heck of it, I thought I would prove Mr. IMakeNoSenseFan wrong. Taken from GW Medical history, it says:
No one is quite sure what killed Washington. He was in fine health at age 67 when he contracted a sore throat a few days after helping remove a carriage that was stuck in snow. A doctor was summoned who, according to the principles of the time, bled him. He was bled several more times. Washington requested no further bleeding be performed, but he was bled again anyway

And several other sources say he died of a throat infection. No shotguns. No naked prancing through the snow.


Get your sh*t straight before you disrespect our first president.

 

[Red Dawn]

And I ask yet again, at what point does a person become wealthy enough, or a company big enough and/or offensive enough that it becomes ethical to steal from them?

I'm not arguing that A1, I'm stating that you comparing the rape of an individual to the theft of software is ridiculous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

And I ask yet again, at what point does a person become wealthy enough, or a company big enough and/or offensive enough that it becomes ethical to steal from them?

I'm not arguing that A1, I'm stating that you comparing the rape of an individual to the theft of software is ridiculous.

Not really. Both are cases of blaming the victim. One may be more extreme than the other, but both are the same in that respect.

 

[Red Dawn]

Not really. Both are cases of blaming the victim. One may be more extreme than the other, but both are the same in that respect.

No, in the case of stealing Software it's a case of "They wont miss it". I will associate with those who pirate software. I wont and will never associate with those who commit rape. Is their something wrong with my ethics and morals?

 

[Rainsford]

For those of you that mostly use Windows as your OS, think of it this way. It's an integral part of your computer, just like your hardware. Without Windows your computer wouldn't be able to do anything else. Yet people that pay $200+ for a video card seem unwilling to spend $140 on an OS that is as important to running their system as that video card. I personally think $140 for my OS is one of the best deals I have in my computer.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
This is extremely simple to grasp. It is wrong morally to benefit from the labor of another against their will and/or without paying for it. It really is that simple. Doing so denies a person or company their right to be reimbursed for their goods and/or services. Claiming your own right to their intellectual property while denying the other person their rights is morally wrong, and must remain so.

None of the people here would ever think of doing this to an individual, or their best friend (at least I hope not). The fact that Microsoft is big and wealthy does not change the ethical code here. If ethics become situational, who draws those lines? At what point does a person become wealthy enough, or a company big enough and/or offensive enough that it becomes ethical to steal from them?

This is not a matter of a person simply pushing personal morals about victimless vice on others. This is a societal issue that affects everyone. Theft is a crime with a victim. The claim that Microsoft is big, evil, greedy, and charges too much for their goods, therefore they deserve to have their products stolen is akin to saying "the bitch wore a short skirt, so she deserved to be raped."

I agree with you that it is morally wrong to benefit from the labor of another against their will. I would assert, however, that it is situational, at least from the point of view of a person justifiing why they would feel that they need not pay for the product or service. In this case, people feel that the route that MS took to get their intellectual property is unethical. This is further supported, obviously, by the federal court cases. So the "innovation" that AmusedOne states would be extinguished by patents ending sooner, argueably, can be said to be fueled by unfair and illegal business practices.

Should the use of unethical and in some cases illegal methods of development/business/marketing by Microsoft lessen their claim to intellectual property?

Understand, the above isn't a question about whether pirating XP is justified. It's illegal, enough said. However, I do think it's an interesting question about true ownership of something be it tangible or intangible. What comes to mind is the way in which Native Americans were ousted from their lands through brute force/coersion/bad treatise and the US claimed the land as their own. Albeit, this isn't a great example, it just struck me as having some parallels. Anyways, if a person felt that the property wasn't gained justly, then taking from them is not wrong in their eyes because it never was truely theirs to begin with. It is basically the Robin Hood example.

It's a tricky senario because software is unlike any other product, in that it doesn't truely have a physical form and yet has to be held/kept/stored on mediums to exist. It's similar to a service in that way where the service name is a description of a series of events, but not a physical thing itself. Getting a haircut is a service, but the sicissors themselves are not the "haircut." For my own point of view, I think Windows as an OS is most akin to the car analogy. A product. I know AmusedOne said it's a "product that performs a service" and that's kind of correct, but a car is the same way. The car itself is the "product." Driving your car to the store to buy bread is a function or "service" that the car can perform. That doesn't make the car itself a "service" though. Similarly, I can send email from OS or type documents using the OS, but the OS is still a product. The analogy falls flat, however, when the senario of lending and copying are added.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Not really. Both are cases of blaming the victim. One may be more extreme than the other, but both are the same in that respect.

No, in the case of stealing Software it's a case of "They wont miss it". I will associate with those who pirate software. I wont and will never associate with those who commit rape. Is their something wrong with my ethics and morals?

Yes, because if this is the case you are making excuses for victimizing another based on your own subjective opinions of them.

"They wont miss it"
"They are Evil, so it's OK"
"The bitch wore a short skirt"

All are merely excuses attempting to justify a crime against people.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: Murphyrulez

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
GW is from history class, read quite a bit, learned quite a bit in History I (good professor), but not History II (bad professor).

Please provide another source for this claim.

I beginning to see what's wrong here. In another thread you defended public education and presented yourself as a fine example of it. I would suggest you no longer do that in the future as it would only prove the opposition's point.

Just for the heck of it, I thought I would prove Mr. IMakeNoSenseFan wrong. Taken from GW Medical history, it says:
No one is quite sure what killed Washington. He was in fine health at age 67 when he contracted a sore throat a few days after helping remove a carriage that was stuck in snow. A doctor was summoned who, according to the principles of the time, bled him. He was bled several more times. Washington requested no further bleeding be performed, but he was bled again anyway

And several other sources say he died of a throat infection. No shotguns. No naked prancing through the snow.


Get your sh*t straight before you disrespect our first president.

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g01.htm

Who's Doctor Zebra and why is your source any more credible?

I'm not saying who's right here and I'm not a presentist, but don't go prancing around like our Fore Fathers were saints.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: docmanhattan


http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g01.htm

Who's Doctor Zebra and why is your source any more credible?

I'm not saying who's right here and I'm not a presentist, but don't go prancing around like our Fore Fathers were saints.

Oh for fscks sake. There is NO source claiming Washington was shot, but EVERY source I have ever read, heard, or studied has said Washington died due to illness and therapeutic bleeding.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yes, because if this is the case you are making excuses for victimizing another based on your own subjective opinions of them.

No I am not. What I am doing is saying one act is more repugnant than another. To label someone who uses warez as being the same as a rapist takes all credibilty away from your argument as far as I am concerned.