Illegal XP owners beware, Microsoft has quite a suprise planned

[Amused]

Originally posted by: docmanhattan

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

It simply amazes me what absurd lengths you'll go to justify theft of intellectual property. MS is nothing but their "potential revenue." That's what intellectual property is all about. If denied their "potential revenue" no one will invent, create or write. There would be no incentive. This "potential revenue" IS the thing being stolen here.

Finally, I will say it yet again, YOU have no right to benefit from the labor of others without justly compensating them.

How many fscking times must I say before it gets through yout thick, thick skull, I am not saying that theft is right.

Are you really that daft that you can't read what I'm posting in almost everyone of my replies?

Geez.

1) MS is not all but their potential revenue and neither is intellectual property all about potential revenue. Don't state your opinions as fact. Just because you shout the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

2) "If denied their "potential revenue" no one will invent, create or write. There would be no incentive." is also a big steamy pile as well. Two reasons: first, nobodies denying their right to potential revenue and secondly, civilization has managed to invent, create, and write for sometime now before MS came along. In fact there are some radicals that even make there code open source. So don't make this seem like an apocolypic downfall of the inventiveness of man. Heck, you could even argue that MS isn't all that innovative all at this point. I see Apple and the GNU/ Linux community as making bigger strides in the way of innovation. MS is still resting their laurels on Win95 and more worried about controlling your fridge, microwave, and toaster through the Xbox.

3) "YOU have no right to benefit from the labor of others without justly compensating them" yes. we know. you've been playing the same one string guitar this whole thread. I still waiting for you to address the points that I have made or do you only have this one point?

edit: you know what amazes me is the lengths that you'll go to completely ignore what people say in their post just so that you can make statements accusing them of justifiing theft or question their level of education or calling them irrational or just plain not acknowledging points. The list goes on, but frankly it boils down to this: you're pig-headed and have no interest in hearing ideas that are not in line with your own. And when confronted with something that challeneges your own fragile mindset, rather than debate the idea, you lunge for an insult and simply shout out what you've already said. fantastic. it's a good strategy and i hope it continues to serve you well.

I ignore much of what you say, because it's either absurd, or irrelevant.

If you know that no one has the right to benefit from the labor of others without just compensation, WHY do you continue to debate this? Why do you keep making excuses, and claiming piracy does not hurt software makers?

Come on, Doc. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You admit stealing is wrong, then make excuses of how software makers are not harmed by piracy, which is flatly absurd.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: jjsole M$ abused their monopoly and don't deserve the high prices that they put on their OS's. Their making a killing off these and they deserve to get reemed. This is corporate liberation theology at its finest. They are evil, so by screwing them its only screwing evil, which is a good thing.

"deserve" has nothing to do with it. They can charge whatever they want for THEIR product. Your option is to not buy it. It's that simple. Again, another software/music thread in which the childish and amoral sense of entitlement runs rampant. By your logic, I can steal from anyone I deem "evil" as well, right?

Childish and amoral sense of entitlement???

Uhm, this is the definition of M$'s abusiveness. Why are you isolating the backlash of M$'s business practices, practices which can be described in much worse terms than this, instead of nailing MS for their crap - its hypocritical. If it wasn't for these jerkoffs I'd probably be able to use another quality operating system instead of stuck with this garbage. Some may not agree with that but the multi-faceted affects of the way they've abused their monopoly is pitiful! Screw them.

<<-------------------- purchased legal copy of XP from MS, albeit regretfully of course.

 

[hoihtah]

wow... i just tried the cleartype fonts... on winXP...
and it rocks.

i should've switched a long time ago.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: jjsole M$ abused their monopoly and don't deserve the high prices that they put on their OS's. Their making a killing off these and they deserve to get reemed. This is corporate liberation theology at its finest. They are <STRONG>evil</STRONG>, so by screwing them its only screwing evil, which is a good thing.

"deserve" has nothing to do with it. They can charge whatever they want for THEIR product. Your option is to not buy it. It's that simple. Again, another software/music thread in which the childish and amoral sense of entitlement runs rampant. By your logic, I can steal from anyone I deem "evil" as well, right?

Childish and amoral sense of entitlement???

Uhm, this is the definition of M$'s abusiveness. Why are you isolating the backlash of M$'s business practices, practices which can be described in much worse terms than this, instead of nailing MS for their crap - its hypocritical. If it wasn't for these jerkoffs I'd probably be able to use another quality operating system instead of stuck with this garbage. Some may not agree with that but the multi-faceted affects of the way they've abused their monopoly is pitiful! Screw them.

<<-------------------- purchased legal copy of XP from MS, albeit regretfully of course.

:::sigh:::

So if I were to have very low opinions about you, it would be OK to steal from you?

I'll repeat what I've said before: 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?

Who draws those lines? You? Me?

This completely destroys any "Microsoft is bad, therefore stealing from them is not immoral" arguments.

This debate was about, and only about Software piracy and MS's attempts to stem it. Whatever else you think MS has done, they have every right to protect their intellectual property, and to not have it stolen from them nor have people benefit from it without just compensation.

Finally, I'll repeat this, since you brought up the same old "they asked for it" argument:

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."

 

[CoOliOgUy17]

hmm well its kinda ineffective if their current service pack 1 doesn't have this feature because im using it with no problems, i dont know why MS even bothers... its stupid really, oh and i dont endorse piracy im just cheap.

 

[HendrixFan]

Here are some important definitions to keep in mind during this debate. Remember, if anyone is charged with warezing WinXp, they would be charged with copyright infringement. Not theft.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing

Steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
- To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully
- To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
- To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer

Infringement - A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach

Hence, someone "pirating" WinXP wouldnt be stealing, they would be infringing.

 

[SUBxWRX]

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Bluga
yawn.

What's the point of that post?

and the point of that post>?

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: SUBxWRX

Originally posted by: Alphathree33

Originally posted by: Bluga
yawn.

What's the point of that post?

and the point of that post>?

And the point of that post?


: )

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Here are some important definitions to keep in mind during this debate. Remember, if anyone is charged with warezing WinXp, they would be charged with copyright infringement. Not theft.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing

Steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
- To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully
- To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
- To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer

Infringement - A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach

Hence, someone "pirating" WinXP wouldnt be stealing, they would be infringing.

That's fine. It's still morally theft. Fraud is a separate crime from theft, but no one here quibles over that, either. No one comes in here and screams "I've been defrauded!" They'll "call" it theft, because morally, it is theft, no matter how the law classifies it.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I ignore much of what you say, because it's either absurd, or irrelevant.

once again you side step something that differs from your fragile mindset rather than actually discussing it. that's fine, but don't dress it up as though my opinion is any less irrelevant than yours.

If you know that no one has the right to benefit from the labor of others without just compensation, WHY do you continue to debate this? Why do you keep making excuses, and claiming piracy does not hurt software makers?

Just so we're clear on this:

1) i agree stealing is wrong and piracy is bad

2) i never said that it did or didn't hurt software makers. i said that it's a victimless crime and the software creaters do not lose any money that they already have. please try not to twist words. mmmkay?

3) but i'm trying to move beyond the obvious fact that we agree on and take it a step further: does MS truely own the product if they themselves used unethical means in the process of it's creation? Is this stealing more from the person who has the physical disc or company that bought that license than from the corporation that produced it? How is software different defined as a product? as a service? They are all very relavent questions that surround this issue and none of them have anything to do with condoning or justifying stealing or piracy. We already know what the EULA's say and legalities of software. The questions are whether or not they are right. You may not like it, but legal != right. "Legal" and "illegal" mean the majority ( sometimes.. ) agreeed that it would be in their best interest to enforce their idea/whim/whatever as law and very often it has little too do with the altruistic notion of what's best for innovation or what''ll promote people to invent.

Come on, Doc. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You admit stealing is wrong, then make excuses of how software makers are not harmed by piracy, which is flatly absurd.

twisting words again. what-fsckin'-ever, dude.

edit: for grammer.

 

[Red Dawn]

The fact that the act of Pirating WinXP annoys Amusedone so much that he takes it upon himself to be the spokesman for all that is ethical, so much so that it makes him a colossal bore, makes pirating WinXP a worthwhile endeavor

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The fact that the act of Pirating WinXP annoys Amusedone so much that he takes it upon himself to be the spokesman for all that is ethical, so much so that it makes him a colossal bore, makes pirating WinXP a worthwhile endeavor

true dat.

 

[qIat]

All the warez versions of XP I've seen at LANs, etc, are of Professional, not corporate. I would venture to say that there are more warez version of XP in circulation around the world than there are corporate. So, not only is M$ making it a pain in the ass for the legit customers, they aren't even targeting the right pirates.

 

[KokomoGST]

Well, yet another reason for me to stick with Win2k... heck, I'm going to try out Linux (Redhat) after I return from my trip overseas, see if it REALLY will be able to replace everything I need (except for gaming of course).

 

[Amused]

1) i agree stealing is wrong and piracy is bad

Good.

2) i never said that it did or didn't hurt software makers. i said that it's a victimless crime and the software creaters do not lose any money that they already have. please try not to twist words. mmmkay?

Wait, if it hurts software makers (it does by denying them their rights to their product) how is it victimless? If I get you fired from your job, are you not victimized? It's not money you HAD. You're only losing money you don't HAVE yet. By pirating software, the thief robs the software maker of their rights to their copyright or patent, thereby robbing them of their profit. One need not lose any money they already have to be victimized. Were that the case, there would be no rewards for future earnings in injury and wrongfull death suits. Being robbed of future earnings IS a victimization, Doc, no matter how much you claim it isn't.

3) but i'm trying to move beyond the obvious fact that we agree on and take it a step further: does MS truely own the product if they themselves used unethical means in the process of it's creation? Is this stealing more from the person who has the physical disc or company that bought that license than from the corporation that produced it? How is software different defined as a product? as a service? They are all very relavent questions that surround this issue and none of them have anything to do with condoning or justifying stealing or piracy. We already know what the EULA's say and legalities of software. The questions are whether or not they are right. You may not like it, but legal != right. "Legal" and "illegal" mean the majority ( sometimes.. ) agreeed that it would be in their best interest to enforce their idea/whim/whatever as law and very often it has little too do with the altruistic notion of what's best for innovation or what''ll promote people to invent.

Irrelevant to THIS discussion, because I believe this discussion applies to software, inventions, music and art. MS just happens to be the subject that began this thread.

Now, if you were talking of a lawsuit to take MS's patents, trademarks and copyrights away, THAT would be a relevant discussion. Until MS has had their intellectual property legally declared "not theirs" your points are irrelevant to me. Until then it will remain intellectual property theft to take their property without just compensation.

Come on, Doc. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You admit stealing is wrong, then make excuses of how software makers are not harmed by piracy, which is flatly absurd.

twisting words again. what-fsckin'-ever, dude.

edit: for grammer.[/quote]

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The fact that the act of Pirating WinXP annoys Amusedone so much that he takes it upon himself to be the spokesman for all that is ethical, so much so that it makes him a colossal bore, makes pirating WinXP a worthwhile endeavor

Let's just change this a bit to see what it sounds like (and to annoy Red Dawn):

"The fact that the act of raping women annoys Amusedone so much that he takes it upon himself to be the spokesman for all that is ethical, so much so that it makes him a colossal bore, makes raping women a worthwhile endeavor "

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: qIat
All the warez versions of XP I've seen at LANs, etc, are of Professional, not corporate. I would venture to say that there are more warez version of XP in circulation around the world than there are corporate. So, not only is M$ making it a pain in the ass for the legit customers, they aren't even targeting the right pirates.

Do you actually have any idea of what you are talking about? All of the corporate versions are professional. Your suggesting there is a difference, other than licensing there is not.

Bill

 

[Zoltarc]

SP1 will be cracked within two weeks

 

[GoatHerderEd]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Win 98SE for me !

Have XP but not using. Too bloated and slow on my 2.4 p4.

you are running win98 on that?? lmfao!

 

[Red Dawn]

Let's just change this a bit to see what it sounds like (and to annoy Red Dawn):

"The fact that the act of raping women annoys Amusedone so much that he takes it upon himself to be the spokesman for all that is ethical, so much so that it makes him a colossal bore, makes raping women a worthwhile endeavor "

LOL @ Amusedone

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Irrelevant to THIS discussion, because I believe this discussion applies to software, inventions, music and art. MS just happens to be the subject that began this thread.

Now, if you were talking of a lawsuit to take MS's patents, trademarks and copyrights away, THAT would be a relevant discussion. Until MS has had their intellectual property legally declared "not theirs" your points are irrelevant to me. Until then it will remain intellectual property theft to take their property without just compensation.

There you go again, calling things irrelavent.

It's just fun to see how you arbitrarily decide what is relavent and irrelavent. We certainly know you're not using logic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: docmanhattan

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Irrelevant to THIS discussion, because I believe this discussion applies to software, inventions, music and art. MS just happens to be the subject that began this thread.

Now, if you were talking of a lawsuit to take MS's patents, trademarks and copyrights away, THAT would be a relevant discussion. Until MS has had their intellectual property legally declared "not theirs" your points are irrelevant to me. Until then it will remain intellectual property theft to take their property without just compensation.

There you go again, calling things irrelavent.

It's just fun to see how you arbitrarily decide what is relavent and irrelavent. We certainly know you're not using logic.

How is it relevant? The discussion has been, all along, about intellectual property and the theft of it. I am not going to discuss MS's legal troubles, because they are not relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, no matter what you feel about MS, it would not make the theft of their intellectual property any more legal or moral. To throw in what MS has done only implies you feel that is a valid reason or excuse to disregard they intellectual property rights. It is not, and therefore is irrelevant.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

How is it relevant? The discussion has been, all along, about intellectual property and the theft of it. I am not going to discuss MS's legal troubles, because they are not relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, no matter what you feel about MS, it would not make the theft of their intellectual property any more legal or moral. To throw in what MS has done only implies you feel that is a valid reason or excuse to disregard they intellectual property rights. It is not, and therefore is irrelevant.

What's really interesting is that you're not willing to discuss MS's legal troubles, which are well established and germane to their product, but you are more than willing to make unfounded conjectures regarding a person's personal opinions about MS without even asking them what they think.

Again and again you would prefer to imply that I or anyone else who disagrees with you has ill-feelings toward MS than discuss relavent points surrounding this topic. If you can't see that, well then I suppose I can understand why you conveniently only see things in black and white. To admit otherwise would shatter what small shred of credibility you might have in this discussion. It does, however, have the uncanny result of making you sound boarish and redundant.

So, to turn your phrase: To throw in what MS has done only implies you feel that is a valid reason or excuse to disregard they intellectual property rights.

To throw in what you think people feel about MS only implies that you feel it is a valid reason or excuse to disregard their opinions or points.

 

[NogginBoink]

Wow... what an entertaining thread!

Personally, I have to agree with AmusedOne: when does ethics or legality become situational? Is it okay to pirate from MS but not another company? So far, AmusedOne is the only one here who's been able to defend his position logically.

Secondly: if any of you think this is going to be MS's best or last attempt to stop piracy, I think you can safely put that thought to rest. MS does have the resources to develop and implement effective anti piracy measures. Don't confuse lack of results so far with lack of ability.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: docmanhattan

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

How is it relevant? The discussion has been, all along, about intellectual property and the theft of it. I am not going to discuss MS's legal troubles, because they are not relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, no matter what you feel about MS, it would not make the theft of their intellectual property any more legal or moral. To throw in what MS has done only implies you feel that is a valid reason or excuse to disregard they intellectual property rights. It is not, and therefore is irrelevant.

What's really interesting is that you're not willing to discuss MS's legal troubles, which are well established and germane to their product, but you are more than willing to make unfounded conjectures regarding a person's personal opinions about MS without even asking them what they think.

Again and again you would prefer to imply that I or anyone else who disagrees with you has ill-feelings toward MS than discuss relavent points surrounding this topic. If you can't see that, well then I suppose I can understand why you conveniently only see things in black and white. To admit otherwise would shatter what small shred of credibility you might have in this discussion. It does, however, have the uncanny result of making you sound boarish and redundant.

So, to turn your phrase: To throw in what MS has done only implies you feel that is a valid reason or excuse to disregard they intellectual property rights.

To throw in what you think people feel about MS only implies that you feel it is a valid reason or excuse to disregard their opinions or points.

If you'd like to discuss MS's legal woes, start a thread about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with their intellectual property rights unless a US court decides they are no longer their's.

I may be boring, but at least I'm consistant and I don't try to change the central topic in the middle of a debate.

I have addressed every relevant point you've brought up. Do not think to accuse me of disregarding them out of hand, unless they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. MS's legal woes have nothing to do with their, or anyone else's property rights unless, and until those rights are deemed invalid by a court. Until then, it is moot as you or I cannot make the decision that their property rights do not belong to them. And as such, using their legal troubles in a discussion about the piracy of their property rights can only imply one thing and one thing only: MS is bad, therefore it's OK to pirate their products. I see NO OTHER reason to bring it up when the debate has been, all along, about the piracy of their intellectual property.