Illegal XP owners beware, Microsoft has quite a suprise planned

[GermyBoy]

Microsoft is so stupid to do this. This is the BIGGEST mistake of their career. The thing is, the reason there is a corporate edition is so that you can put it in and go. Otherwise, you have to sit there and install all these systems and type in all these keys. What the hell are they thinking?

These are some of my observations from this post:
1) They are going to piss off every corporation in America.
2) WinXP sucks already, now everybody will know it
3) They can't stop making service packs and updates for Win2k, as that is never ever going to die. People will always use Win2k, the best Windows OS there is, no questions asked.
4) MS is going to try to kill Win2k with their next Windows OS, which will be completely useless and worthless. I won't upgrade for 5-10 years if then!!
5) Good luck, MS, try to sue over 1,000,000 college kids and programmers in the US. I dare you. Then...sue all the Asians...over 100,000,000 people use Windows products illegally. Try to "save the world", you stupid, greedy bastards.

Thank you for your time.

Peace,
GermyBoy

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima
Amused one, do you just not reply to people when you can't think of a witty answer? For anyone else out there, I'd love to see someone look at this objectively and give their thoughts. Many of you liken piracy to material theft; I however don't see it that way:

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: ZeroBurn
have pirates ever been very hard behind, if not a few steps in front? whether it be the leaked dvd encryption or a magic marker, there'll be ways around it. if they spent more efforts on creating their actual product rather than expend resources on circumventing people, perhaps more people would be willing to purchase their products.

Let's try this another way:

Have shoplifters ever been very far behind, if not a few steps in front? Whether it be fake gift boxes with false doors or special tools to remove anti-theft tags there will always be a way around it. If stores spent more efforts on keeping better stock in their stores rather than spending resources on circumventing thieves, perhaps more people would be willing to buy clothes.

Nope, sounds pretty stupid.

Let's try it this way:

Have car thieves ever been very far behind, if not a few steps in front? Whether it be Slim jims or ignition popping tools there will always be a way around it. If car makers spent more efforts on building nicer cars rather than spending resources on circumventing thieves, perhaps more people would be interested in buying cars.

Nope, that's pretty stupid as well.

I guess this means that blaming the victim really is stupid.

One huge, gaping hole in your logic: The loss of an item of clothing or a car represents a real, tangible, physical loss to the owner. Where is the real, physical, tangible loss to Microsoft when a copy is duplicated.

Now, let's say that instead of stealing the item of clothing the "theif" instead duplicated the clothing and walked home with that item of clothing, leaving the store owner with his original item of clothing. Let's say that, instead of Joe losing his fancy new Corvette to a theif, that instead the theif somehow duplicates the Corvette and drives home with his own copy?

Don't compare apples and oranges.

More justification for theft.

I wonder what your reaction would be if your boss told you something like this when he refused to pay you for a days/weeks/months work?

Intellectual property is no less property than anything else. You are stealing someone's work, and using it without paying for it.

The only hole here, is in your morality.

assuming I'm a pirate because I hold a different viewpoint than yours.

at you thinking I condone piracy. I'm just looking at it from a more objective angle.

I am assuming your position from the position you advocate. Why else would you go to such lengths in an assinine attempt to justify theft? As for the claimed objectivity of your position, it is nonexistent. Any objective man would know that deeming intellectual property as intangible, and therefore having no value would put a grinding halt to innovation and invention... not to mention software development.

People do not invent, innovate, and devlop ideas for altruistic purposes. They do so for returns. Your illogical, and immoral position not only denies them this return, it makes them virtual slaves who get no payment for their work.

You are never, ever entitled to the labor of another (or fruits thereof). The minute you assume this entitlement, you condemn others to slavery.

 

[pulse8]

1) They are going to piss off every corporation in America.

They'll probably just piss off some IT guys. They'll get over it.

2) WinXP sucks already, now everybody will know it

I happen to like XP and so do many others who've posted in this thread. You should read more closely.

3) They can't stop making service packs and updates for Win2k, as that is never ever going to die. People will always use Win2k, the best Windows OS there is, no questions asked.

They can stop making service packs and it will die if they want it to. People will not always use Win2k and you're kidding yourself if you believe that.

4) MS is going to try to kill Win2k with their next Windows OS, which will be completely useless and worthless. I won't upgrade for 5-10 years if then!!

Then don't. Stay behind the times, but don't come and complain here about it.

5) Good luck, MS, try to sue over 1,000,000 college kids and programmers in the US. I dare you. Then...sue all the Asians...over 100,000,000 people use Windows products illegally. Try to "save the world", you stupid, greedy bastards.

Well, this is just silly because even they know they aren't going to sue 1,000,000 people.

 

[Ultima]

How am I "justifying" theft? I suppose that if I look at something from a viewpoint you don't like I am therefore "justifying" it.

That's your opinion.

I know something about theft, as I had a bike stolen not too long ago. That represented a real, physical, tangible loss to me. However, say the theif didn't steal the bike but instead copied it with some super duper matter duplicator, do you think I would give a damn? I didn't lose anything, and his gain doesn't affect me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ultima
How am I "justifying" theft? I suppose that if I look at something from a viewpoint you don't like I am therefore "justifying" it.

That's your opinion.

I know something about theft, as I had a bike stolen not too long ago. That represented a real, physical, tangible loss to me. However, say the theif didn't steal the bike but instead copied it with some super duper matter duplicator, do you think I would give a damn? I didn't lose anything, and his gain doesn't affect me.

Fine. Call me if you ever patent something, or write a program (I wont be holding my breath). I'll promptly steal this "intangible" thing and profit off of it, robbing you of your legal claim to it.

We'll see how quickly you start whining.

At any rate, you did not address a single point I made. I can only assume it's because you are incapable of doing so, and you're simply parroting an argument you've heard made by someone else.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima
How am I "justifying" theft? I suppose that if I look at something from a viewpoint you don't like I am therefore "justifying" it.

That's your opinion.

I know something about theft, as I had a bike stolen not too long ago. That represented a real, physical, tangible loss to me. However, say the theif didn't steal the bike but instead copied it with some super duper matter duplicator, do you think I would give a damn? I didn't lose anything, and his gain doesn't affect me.

Fine. Call me if you ever patent something, or write a program (I wont be holding my breath). I'll promptly steal this "intangible" thing and profit off of it, robbing you of your legal claim to it.

We'll see how quickly you start whining.

At any rate, you did not address a single point I made. I can only assume it's because you are incapable of doing so, and you're simply parroting an argument you've heard made by someone else.

Or maybe.. you just cant' see past your own opinions.

Please, pray tell, explain to me how a software company is "losing" sales when the people "stealing" their software would never purchase it in the first place? They don't lose any inventory, they don't lose any sales. Perhaps they lost the opportunity to make more sales but that's a different story. Most who really want it will pay for it, those who don't care won't. Who's not addressing points? You have yet to address how someone has lost something when a CD is duplicated, as opposed to someone getting a car stolen (which you made a *fine* example of equating with software piracy :roll

 

[HendrixFan]

Before you start talking about patents and incentives for creation, remember that MS has NEVER had a patent expire. Nothing has entered the public domain. Creators are given patents (supposedly) for a time limited basis, then the work enters the public domain for the benefit of society. Until that happens, there is absolutely no reasonable arguement to defend MS in their attempts to "protect" their work.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: Ultima
How am I "justifying" theft? I suppose that if I look at something from a viewpoint you don't like I am therefore "justifying" it.

That's your opinion.

I know something about theft, as I had a bike stolen not too long ago. That represented a real, physical, tangible loss to me. However, say the theif didn't steal the bike but instead copied it with some super duper matter duplicator, do you think I would give a damn? I didn't lose anything, and his gain doesn't affect me.

Fine. Call me if you ever patent something, or write a program (I wont be holding my breath). I'll promptly steal this "intangible" thing and profit off of it, robbing you of your legal claim to it.

We'll see how quickly you start whining.

At any rate, you did not address a single point I made. I can only assume it's because you are incapable of doing so, and you're simply parroting an argument you've heard made by someone else.

Or maybe.. you just cant' see past your own opinions.

Or maybe you're just incapable of presenting a valid counter.

Please, pray tell, explain to me how a software company is "losing" sales when the people "stealing" their software would never purchase it in the first place?

An irrelevant, and often fallacious argument. Most people who steal sofware would buy it if they were not able to steal it. As for those who would not buy it, they are still not entitled to it.

They don't lose any inventory, they don't lose any sales. Perhaps they lost the opportunity to make more sales but that's a different story. Most who really want it will pay for it, those who don't care won't.

And again, they are not entitled to use it if they are not willing to pay for it.

Who's not addressing points? You have yet to address how someone has lost something when a CD is duplicated, as opposed to someone getting a car stolen (which you made a *fine* example of equating with software piracy :roll

Again, we have intellectual property for a reason. You are not entitled to enjoy the fruits of another's labor without their express permission. A weeks work is intangible as well. I ask again, what would your response be if your boss told you he was not paying you for your intangible time? Or your intangible ideas?

 

[Amused]

I fail to see how this:

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Before you start talking about patents and incentives for creation, remember that MS has NEVER had a patent expire. Nothing has entered the public domain. Creators are given patents (supposedly) for a time limited basis, then the work enters the public domain for the benefit of society.

Leads to this:

until that happens, there is absolutely no reasonable arguement to defend MS in their attempts to "protect" their work.

Let's see if I have this right...
Because Microsoft's copyrights and patents haven't expired (a time when they no longer can profit from their intellectual property rights) they have no right to profit from them now?

From what universe to you derive this twisted piece of so-called logic?

 

[HendrixFan]

Again, you are absolutely wrong about copyrights and patents, and wrong about intellectual property. First off, most the founding fathers scoffed at the idea of intellectual property, property as far as they were concerned was tangible. Even if you accept intellectual property as valid, patents are to be time limited. Patents are for "useful arts and sciences", which is very shady to consider MS software either. Even allowing for that, they are supposed to be time limited and then enter the public domain.

" You are not entitled to enjoy the fruits of another's labor without their express permission."

During the duration of the patent yes, but afterwards you are incorrect. The problem is MS and other large corporations have successfully lobbied to virtually create endless patents that dont enter the public domain. If MS doesnt play by the rules, why should we?

 

[pulse8]

During the duration of the patent yes, but afterwards you are incorrect. The problem is MS and other large corporations have successfully lobbied to virtually create endless patents that dont enter the public domain. If MS doesnt play by the rules, why should we?

A copyright only lasts for 75 years, I believe.

Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse was up a few years ago, but they were able to get an extension of something like another 100 years.

So, since they were able to get that changed in order to keep their copyright, does that mean everyone should pirate Fantasia as much as they possibly can?

 

[HendrixFan]

"Because Microsoft's copyrights and patents haven't expired (a time when they no longer can profit from their intellectual property rights) they have no right to profit from them now?

From what universe to you derive this twisted piece of so-called logic?"

Patents werent set to expire when they are no longer profitable. Initially, patents lasted 7 years. And it took about 7 years for an idea to work its way across the country, as things moved much slower then. Today, within a year things are outdated. Business moves lightning fast, and accordingly, patents should be for a much shorter duration. Because MS believes this law to be a joke and chooses not to respect it, they have no grounds to expect the same from consumers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
"Because Microsoft's copyrights and patents haven't expired (a time when they no longer can profit from their intellectual property rights) they have no right to profit from them now?

From what universe to you derive this twisted piece of so-called logic?"

Patents werent set to expire when they are no longer profitable. Initially, patents lasted 7 years. And it took about 7 years for an idea to work its way across the country, as things moved much slower then. Today, within a year things are outdated. Business moves lightning fast, and accordingly, patents should be for a much shorter duration. Because MS believes this law to be a joke and chooses not to respect it, they have no grounds to expect the same from consumers.

Excuse me, but what patent law has MS broken? And please explain why MS should not have the right to profit from their intellectual property?

 

[HendrixFan]

As I have stated, there is nothing that guarantees a "right" to profit from intellectual property or property for that matter. In fact, the reason intellectual property was scoffed at by the founding fathers was because there was NO WAY TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and there was no harm because the intellectual property holder still has the property after someone else gains it. Learn a little history. If you have an idea and someone else learns of it, there is no way to physically make them unlearn it. Also, patents were to be granted not only for a time limited basis, then released to the public,; but they were to be issued for "useful arts and sciences".

Even with physical property, there is no guarantee that you will profit from your property. If you choose a business model that is easily copied, capatalism will take care of you. A creator needs to make an incentive for purchasing their products, not just sitting back expecting a "right to profit".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
As I have stated, there is nothing that guarantees a "right" to profit from intellectual property or property for that matter. In fact, the reason intellectual property was scoffed at by the founding fathers was because there was NO WAY TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, and there was no harm because the intellectual property holder still has the property after someone else gains it. Learn a little history. If you have an idea and someone else learns of it, there is no way to physically make them unlearn it. Also, patents were to be granted not only for a time limited basis, then released to the public,; but they were to be issued for "useful arts and sciences".

Even with physical property, there is no guarantee that you will profit from your property. If you choose a business model that is easily copied, capatalism will take care of you. A creator needs to make an incentive for purchasing their products, not just sitting back expecting a "right to profit".

Who is "sitting back and expecting a profit?" Who is asking to be "guaranteed a profit?" All I am pointing out is that a person should, and does have a right to their intellectual property. They, and only they should have the right to profit if they are able to. Not a guarantee, not to expect, but only a right to hold their intellectual property.

As for our Founding Fathers:

Article One section Eight of the US Constitution:

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Intellectual property is a Constitutional right. Granted, this right is not, and should not be eternal, but it should be long enough for the writer or inventer to see a return on their investment. 7 years is more than fair.

If our Founding Fathers had such disdain for intellectual property rights, why did they include that right in the Constitution?

Who needs a history lesson???

 

[Hooobi]

Actually... nowadays it's 20 yrs from the date of filing, or typically about 17-18 years after the patent issues (they typically take 2-3 years).

Personally, I think the only legitimate argument that can be made against protection of IP rights is a "fair use" one. And there are a number of fair use exceptions already.

My personal opinion is that, to some extent, a monopoly such a MS pretty much has in the OS market is detrimental, not necessarily the protection of intellectual property rights which I believe to be necessary in order to maintain incentives for people to put in the time to create and develop new ideas and technologies.

How would you feel if you spent a year creating, building and tweaking some gizmo and then someone took the fruit of all that time, effort and creativity and started churning them out in China and then selling them to your neighbors? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be motivated to go back to the garage and start working on a new gizmo...

I think the real problem is the economic monopoly, and not the temporary monopoly granted by patent and copyright law.

Anyway, it's late and I'm (as usual) just procrastinating.... back to the books...

 

[jiffylube1024]

After finishing reading everything here, I can honestly say it's been a frustrating read. There have been so many good ideas presented in this thread, it's astounding (and the amount of sarcastic replies, exaggerated metaphors, and other rhetoric is up there as well). AmusedOne, NFS4, HendrixFan, I have to say that of all of your posts, you all definately strike me as very intelligent, and very thorough in your arguments. Not only that, but greatly I respect what you guys say - there is a lot of thought that goes into what you say in all of your posts and I agree with your viewpoints most of the time. However, you guys are also quite stubborn, and seem to think that you are ALWAYS right. It is not going to break you to admit you're wrong about something, or to agree with a point made by someone you're arguing with once in awhile.

One thing I've found has gotten quite muddled is one of the more important points:

Microsoft using monopolistic tactics to leverage their products, and their outrageous prices. AmusedOne and NFS4 - I completely understand your arguments against piracy, and how it's just as wrong as theft, but I don't think that either of you once acknowledged the point of MS using/abusing a monopoly (partly because it was made by someone who you weren't in total agreement with).

There are plenty more good points, but I don't want to touch on them right now due to not wanting to pi$$ any more people off and because I'm exasperated from reading all of this thread (not to mention the time). All I can say is that it has gone from heated debating to volitile arguing without good cause.

So, I hope I didn't step on too many toes, but let's try to be a bit more open here. Sometimes there isn't an appropriate clever metaphor to parry someone else's viewpoint with

Just my $0.02

 

[HendrixFan]

Did you ever read the Federalist Papers? Have you seen explicit quotes DIRECTLY involving intellectual property coming from the founding fathers? They DID NOT consider intellectual property to exist, let alone fall under the Constitutional safeguard. Ill grant that the Constitution is a little vague on clarifying whether or not intellectual property is included, but when seeing what the founding fathers had to say about intellectual property it is quite clear what they meant.

Win95 is 7 years old. They have officially killed it off. They still HAVE NOT released it into the public domain. Their only concern is their own financial benefit, not constitutional idealism. Dont act like their is some great moral authority they have over their software.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Did you ever read the Federalist Papers? Have you seen explicit quotes DIRECTLY involving intellectual property coming from the founding fathers? They DID NOT consider intellectual property to exist, let alone fall under the Constitutional safeguard. Ill grant that the Constitution is a little vague on clarifying whether or not intellectual property is included, but when seeing what the founding fathers had to say about intellectual property it is quite clear what they meant.

Win95 is 7 years old. They have officially killed it off. They still HAVE NOT released it into the public domain. Their only concern is their own financial benefit, not constitutional idealism. Dont act like their is some great moral authority they have over their software.

I fail to see what is vauge about:

"Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That pretty much sums up intellectual property rights in one fell swoop.

I will tell you this, do away with intellectual property rights and you will destroy innovation and investment. If a person cannot benefit from their inventions or creations, where is the incentive to invent or create?

This discussion is not about Win95. It is about WinXP and Microsoft's right to own their intellectual property rights to this OS. It is about people who feel entitled to the fruits of other people's labor, and therefore justify their theft.

You keep on dancing all over the board here in vain attempts to justify a clearly immoral act. I can promise you were the shoe on the other foot, and it was your ideas, inventions, or software being stolen, you'd be whining a mile a minute. Especially if you were a single person, and a large company stole your idea and made a profit on it. If that would be wrong, than it must be wrong when an individual benefits from the fruits of a large company's work without paying for it.

Not long ago, there was a thread about a video card maker stealing art off the web and using it as the artwork on their product packaging. There was a nearly unanimous agreement on this board that this was wrong. I fail to see how that, and this differ.

Finally, here is what Madison had to say about Intellectual Property in the opening of Federalist 43:

"THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers:1. A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. ... The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals."

How one can claim this does not support intellectual propery rights is beyond me.

 

[HendrixFan]

Like Ive said, the founding fathers are on the record as saying the intellectual property does not exist. That would invalidate any claim that they meant it to be included.

Jefferson writes:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it...He who receives an idea from me, receives instructions himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

The point of patents was twofold, to give benefit to creators, and second to help advance society by allowing them to enter the public domain. You are worried about destroying innovation, well let me tell you that (allowing me to say MS "innovates and creates") the desire by man to create will still exist. Intellectual property "theft" is a good thing. Ideas should not be bottled up, or so the founding fathers tell us. Patenting algorithms and processes are horrible. What if Algebra was patented, or Calculus? Intellectual endeavors will always continue, and its awful that they are being restricted (see the RIAA's SDMI challenge).

Ill even go you one further and accept intellectual property as being included. Your concern is with the destruction of innovation. Are you not similarly concerned with the elimination of patents entering the public domain? Currently no Microsoft software will do so for another 70 years, longer if they get yet another extension. This goes against half of the very principle behind copyright. The benefit of society as a whole.

Ive got all sorts of ideas personally. Im sure none of them are worth a dime though. Im not guaranteed any sort of return off my ideas. I will tell you one thing though, any multimedia work I have done, including video and audio, I have freely shared with anyone. If patents werent given out like candy, and work entered the public domain in a timely fashion (say a year or so), then everyone would benefit. It forces creators to continually create to get a return, instead of squatting and stagnating industry. You make a good idea, you bank off it for a short period of time, then society recieves it. That was the original intent. Imagine where Windows would be if it entered the public domain after a year or two. They would constantly have to "innovate" in order to stay in business. Everyone would have access to Win2K by now, and all sorts of compatible clones would be out on the market. Microsoft would have to create some sort of incentive to stay with them. Instead we are left with a lumbering monopoly that chooses to squash real innovation by forcing them out of the marketplace or simply buying them up. Microsoft has been twice convicted of illegally leveraging their monopoly, virtually forcing users to have Windows. They are also currently under investigation for price gouging. I can sympathize with people who cant or wont pony up the money for MS.

Again, all 5 of my computers have legit installs of Windows. Im not trying to rationalize some defense for my behavior. Ive spent to many countless hours reading through the Halloween Documents, and trial transcripts and legal briefings submitted over the past 6 years involving the anti-trust case. I know full well what MS is dealing with, what they are doing, where they are trying to go. Trying to get back on the original point of the thread, the product activation and this service pack have NOTHING to do with piracy. They dont prevent piracy at all. They leverage control. This is about a monopoly trying to further maintain control of the computing industry.

Edit: Amused One, I would suggest you try reading "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" by Lawrence Lessig. I disagree with him on some of his foundations and conclusions, certainly not as idealistic as me, but the guy is very bright. He talks about intellectual property and the internet. Its one of the best books Ive read in quite some time.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

5) Good luck, MS, try to sue over 1,000,000 college kids and programmers in the US. I dare you. Then...sue all the Asians...over 100,000,000 people use Windows products illegally. Try to "save the world", you stupid, greedy bastards.

Thank you for your time.

Peace,
GermyBoy

that wouldnt be just a little bit racist would it

 

[BreakApart]

Originally posted by: udonoogen

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

5) Good luck, MS, try to sue over 1,000,000 college kids and programmers in the US. I dare you. Then...sue all the Asians...over 100,000,000 people use Windows products illegally. Try to "save the world", you stupid, greedy bastards.

Thank you for your time.

Peace,
GermyBoy

that wouldnt be just a little bit racist would it

Racist? Get a life.

The poster was referring to all the illegal warez created in China and other ASIAN markets. This is a FACT, not racism. :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Guys, I think you are all making a huge issue out of something that is really very small. Well...that and turning this into a MS flame-fest (there's a huge surprise). But this is all MS is really doing.

When MS starts shipping Windows XP corporate version with service pack 1 pre-installed (so right after installation it already has SP1 installed), it will also send new corprate CD keys that will work with this new release. The new corporate keys will just be for the new imbedded SP1 versions of XP that are being shipping. Any corporate copies of XP that are floating around right now will still work with the existing CD keys, and they will continue to work even after SP1 has been installed. In other words, if your company already has a corporate XP cd with a valid corporate CD key, that key will continue to work with that CD and any computers that are set up using that CD will have no problem upgrading to SP1. They won't need a new key or anything like that. If your company wants to get an XP cd with SP1 already part of the installation, you can do that just fine, you will just get a new CD key for that CD. If you already had a pre-SP1 copy of XP, you will then have 2 keys. But since you probably would have no reason to not install XP with SP1, you'd just use the second key. Wow, sounds tough. Businesses will really hate MS for that

The only other real change is disabling the FCKGW... key that a lot of people used, but unless you're pirating XP you should have no reason to care.

And I just can't resist making a comment about all you people that think it's alright to steal from MS because either they are "evil" or because it's not really stealing. To the first group, if you really think MS is so terrible, why do you use their products? They must offer you something, right? Otherwise you'd use a less evil product like Open Source stuff or something. To the second group, you're sort of right. MS doesn't really loose anything when you pirate their software since you don't physically take anything. But if everyone thought like you guys do, there would be no products out there at all. Essentially, the majority of us pay to have products developed so you can mooch off of us. So you guys are not only stealing from MS, you're stealing from everyone that buys MS products too. I don't think it's fair for me to pay for Windows and Ultima gets it for free (not saying you steal it, but you're saying it's ok to do so). Without the people that pay, the theives would have no product to steal.

 

[cavingjan]

Theft of software is not neccessarily taking away from the developer of that software but also its competitors. Lets take Photoshop as an example. Its too expensive but a lot of people use a warez version for photoediting. Now you would argue that you would never buy it (due to price) so they haven't lost any money. But what about another developer that has a similar product but is a third the cost? You could do the same thing in their program but you prefer to pirate the namebrand than to give some money to thier competitor that makes a competant product but just isn't seeing the sales that it should.
Pirating MS Office hasn't hurt MS as much as Corel with the lack of sales for their office suite that is significantly cheaper and is just as capable.

 

[Amused]

Hendrix, one quote from Jefferson does not negate the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. Nor does it support your entire argument.

Here is another quote from a letter Jefferson wrote to Madison during the creation of our Constitution:

"I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me......
Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding __ years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose..." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450

Gee, it seems the very spirit of section one; article eight was partially Jefferson's idea.

And I'm tired of the complaints about MS's attempts to stem piracy. Are antitheft sensors in retail stores not about theft, but control? Are all the other lengths they go to try and stop shoplifting not about shoplifting, but about control? It is about theft, Hendrix, not control.

Finally, you seem hooked on this "public good as a whole" nonsense. You've parroted it now in two threads I've seen you it. When the "public good" is put before individual rights, everyone loses. That is, and always has been the failure of collectivism. There can be no "public good" if the individuals that make up that public are robbed of their rights in vain attempts to obtain this perceived "good."

Microsoft's copyrights, trademarks and patents harm you not at all. Nor does their length harm you, or society. YOU are not entitled to a damn thing from anyone else. You had better get used to this, or you'll only go through life whining.

BTW, remember you told me I had better check my history? Check yours. Jefferson, as Secretary of State, headed up the first US Patent office.

Finally, if you're going to provide quotes, do so in context:

"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely
spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive
right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

Ideas are hard to hold on to, but exclusive rights to profits on inventions MUST be given to foster creation, invention, and innovation.

Gee, a concept I've been talking about all along.

Just because you don't like MS, does not mean they should be denied their copyrights, patents, and trademarks to suit your collectivist ideals.

Be careful who you try to lecture about the history of our Founding Fathers, Hendrix. You might just run into someone who has actually studied them.