How do I get "Administrator Privileges"?

Noel Paton wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
> >> I hesitate to join in this slanging match. However.
> >>
> >> You have bought a licence, which has certain conditions attached
to
> > it.
> >> Those conditions are enforceable at law under most jurisdictions.
> >
> > That depends on the license.
>
>
> The License terms have been tested in the US and the UK courts - and
stand.

Direct me to an example of it tested in the U.S court system.

> >
> >> If you buy the freehold on a house, you are almost certain to buy
it
> >> with covenants attached. These may say, for arguments sake, that
you
> >> cannot erect an advertising hoarding on the land. The covenant
will
> >> certainly say that as a condition of sale that these restrictions
> > will
> >> apply to all heirs, successors and other purchasers. If you then
> > build a
> >> hoarding and one of the heirs or successors of the person or
company
> > who
> >> originally sold the house and land and imposed the covenant cares
to
> > go
> >> to law they will win, unless the covenant can be shown to be
grossly
> >> unreasonable.
> >
> > very bad example. You cannot draw a parallel here, since this is so
> > completely different than what we are talking about here.
>
> Not at all - Microsoft own the software - you only own a license!

Breaking zoning laws is still not the same thing. There are legitimate
and enforceable reasons for covenants.

> >
> >> In the same way Microsoft will have imposed certain conditions on
> > Dell,
> >> over and above those conditions in a retail licence, in granting
them
> > a
> >> licence to sell PC's with Windows installed. In exchange the
licence
> >> would have been considerably cheaper than the cost of a retail
> > licence,
> >> and Dell will have passed some of that saving onto yourself when
you
> >> bought the Dell machine. The licence will require Dell to impose
the
> >> conditions on the purchaser of the PC. At law these conditions
are
> >> enforceable.
> >
> > This is not about Microsoft imposing restrictions on Dell. What is
not
> > enforceable is Dell imposing the restriction mentioned on the user.
>
> IT IS about Microsoft's terms and conditions - Dell merely act as a
Vendor
> in law

And again, IT IS about enforcing the restrications you mentioned on me.

> >
> >> Whether Microsoft or Dell would actually come after you is another
> >> matter, it would depend upon them finding out and whether you were
> > worth
> >> suing. So it might be better to keep schtoom as to what you do in
> > the
> >> privacy of your own home. If I were you and I was in business,
then
> > I
> >> would look over my shoulder, from time to time.
> >
> > Well, I'm not in business, and you are paranoid.
>
> Neither of which would prevent you being prosecuted, should MS take
such a
> step.

With our screwed up judicial system they can prosecute me for
breathing.

> >
> > To expand on the car example. If your old car is totalled, and all
you
> > have left are the tires, you can still use them again. And no
> > restrictions by Firestone imposed on Ford will give them the
ability to
> > enforce a rule that says you cannot use those tires anymore.
> >
> > The original Dell was crap, and the OS is all I have left of it.
And
> > since the pc I put it on also belongs to me, I intend to get the
most
> > out of it.
> >
>
> Experiences count for nothing in law - and the CD is legally
worthless, and
> any install from it legally a no-no.
> The ONLY machine that CD was legally allowed to run on was the
machine it
> came with.

BTW. Direct me to where it says that in my license.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Todd H. wrote:
> writes:
> > I have stolen nothing, and have already stated that the copy of the
> > (unregistered)window 98(SE) software we are talking about belongs
to
> > me.
>
> That's the point--no, no it doesn't "belong to you." You are a
> licensee. You bought the computer from dell, and with it came
> installed Microsoft software for which you were granted and accepted
a
> restricted license to that software. One of the restrictions of
OEM
> distributions of Windows is that it can't be legally used on other
> computers. Have you never read a license agreement? Or even
> what's on that CD label--it may even be on there.

When I said it belongs to me, it is understood(by everyone else) what
is meant. Only I have the right to use it.

> So, he's absolutely right, that you cannot legally put your Dell OEM
> copy of win98 on a non-Dell computer. Even if it's technically
> possible, it's still a breach of copyright.

And would you mind posting the exact wording of what you have been
referring to?

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

> We're wasting our breath. He's convinced himself it is Ok because it
is
> 'his' copy.
>
> It's not. He doesn't care. He'll rationalize it forever.

And again, we will continmue to disagree, so you are correct. You have
been wasting your breath. :-)

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

writes:

> > We're wasting our breath. He's convinced himself it is Ok because it
> is
> > 'his' copy.
> >
> > It's not. He doesn't care. He'll rationalize it forever.
>
> And again, we will continmue to disagree, so you are correct. You have
> been wasting your breath. :-)

"Don't bother me with the facts--I've made up my mind."

LOL.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Can we start a new newsgroup called arguing.about.microsoft.licenses ???

.... Ben Myers

On 02 Feb 2005 21:51:05 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:

> writes:
>> Todd H. wrote:
>> > So, he's absolutely right, that you cannot legally put your Dell
>> > OEM copy of win98 on a non-Dell computer. Even if it's
>> > technically possible, it's still a breach of copyright.
>>
>> And would you mind posting the exact wording of what you have been
>> referring to?
>
>Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
>the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
>I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
>Dell system.
>
>But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
>orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
>well, you're in luck:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>--
>Todd H.
>http://www.toddh.net/

writes:
> Todd H. wrote:
> > So, he's absolutely right, that you cannot legally put your Dell
> > OEM copy of win98 on a non-Dell computer. Even if it's
> > technically possible, it's still a breach of copyright.
>
> And would you mind posting the exact wording of what you have been
> referring to?

Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
Dell system.

But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
well, you're in luck:

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx



Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
..
>
> BTW. Direct me to where it says that in my license.
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.
>
Read the thing for yourself for a change- it's there in black and white!

I don't have an ME Dell CD around to read, but it's plain as day in my OEM
EULA here.

Besides which, you probably wouldn't believe me if I quote the text verbatim
anyhow
Read the EULA


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

Ben, uh, this is what the "Blocked Senders" list is for.
HH

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:...
> Can we start a new newsgroup called arguing.about.microsoft.licenses ???
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
> On 02 Feb 2005 21:51:05 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:
>
>> writes:
>>> Todd H. wrote:
>>> > So, he's absolutely right, that you cannot legally put your Dell
>>> > OEM copy of win98 on a non-Dell computer. Even if it's
>>> > technically possible, it's still a breach of copyright.
>>>
>>> And would you mind posting the exact wording of what you have been
>>> referring to?
>>
>>Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
>>the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
>>I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
>>Dell system.
>>
>>But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
>>orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
>>well, you're in luck:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx
>>
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>--
>>Todd H.
>>http://www.toddh.net/
>

Well, Todd, if you want to follow MicroSoft's lead, go ahead. I mean,
do you let the RIAA define "fair use," and all that as well?

MS will claim as much as is humanly possible, and then some. Why?
Because that way they can establish, by precedent, more ways to screw
end users out of their money.

I'm old enough to remember when companies began using the copyright
paradigm to protect software. A fair number of people thought that was
a bad idea, since copyright law was complex as it was. But still,
10-20 years ago, it was accepted that when you bought software, you
bought, and owned, a *copy of the software*. Of course, if that
paradigm had been followed rigorously, companies would have been
obliged to provide free copies to public libraries for fair use...

The classic example of this was Borland's "just like a book."
liscence. You could use their products just like a book. You could
loan your purchased copy to a friend, and he could use it, but only if
it weren't installed on your system (and in use) as well. Quite simple
and effective. Pity it never took off.

Point being that the principle was that you purchased, and owned, a
copy of the code, in the same way you purchased a book or a magazine.
Of course, MS (and everyone else) made a point of including a liscence
which stated -basically- that the software was worthless, warranteed
to accomplish nothing, and if you used XXX software to manage your
business, and lost money, it wasn't their fault. If, however, the
floppies it came on were bad they would replace the physical media for
a nominal fee. On the other hand, if you WERE caught copying this
software (which, recall, was not warranteed for any "fitness or use")
you agreed that the XXX company had the right to carry off your
firstborn in compensation.

Now a few years ago (after they had cornered about 95%+ of the market)
MS realized that income from new sales had flattened out, and the only
way to keep revenue coming in was change how they could charge for
their software. That's when they dropped the original "buy a copy of
the code" idea and moved on to "buy a *temporary liscense* to *use"
their software." That way they can keep gouging people for updates,
especially when they drop support for older platforms.

Well, naturally they had to keep people from recycling all those
copies of older, but (in many cases) perfectly usable software. So
they decided to "limit" transferring software.

What I want to see is the specific statute that says Darren can't do
what he says he can. I don't care about how someone makes a living
agreeing with MicroSoft's interpretation of copyright law, I want a
specific citation, including a direct quote -from an actual statue-,
which says that MS can get away with that crap.

Aside from the fact that no one has taken Bill "I'm the richest man in
the world" Gates to court about it yet, that is.

On 02 Feb 2005 21:51:05 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:

>Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
>the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
>I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
>Dell system.
>
>But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
>orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
>well, you're in luck:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx
>
>
>
>Best Regards,

Casey,

Interesting story.

Completely wrong.

I've been in the software business for 24 years. Software licensing was
defined LONG before Microsoft had any clout in the industry. You're
confusing OWN with LICENSE and using them interchangeably.

They're not.

Software for enterprise use has always been restricted -- much more than the
MS license. It was licensed to a specific machine, by serial number. You're
upgrading? Great, that will be more money please. Not only that, it was NOT
transferrable EVEN IF YOUR COMPANY WAS PURCHASED. I made a lot of money
when companies were acquired, as I could sell a BRAND NEW license.

Microsoft ABSOLUTELY offers a license just as the Borland license. It's
called RETAIL. You purchase a copy at your local OfficeMax and you can
transfer it as often as you'd like.

But, you'll pay FULL retail.

That's not what you're buying when you buy a computer with an OS on it.
You're paying a MUCH reduced price for the operating system, in exchange for
agreeing that it is licensed ONLY to that machine. If you want a retail
version, it can be done, even from Dell, but you'll pay $100-200 MORE for
the machine.

It's YOUR choice, not Microsoft's.

Too bad many people will only read your diatribe and will actually believe
it.

Tom


"Casey Tompkins" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Well, Todd, if you want to follow MicroSoft's lead, go ahead. I mean,
> do you let the RIAA define "fair use," and all that as well?
>
> MS will claim as much as is humanly possible, and then some. Why?
> Because that way they can establish, by precedent, more ways to screw
> end users out of their money.
>
> I'm old enough to remember when companies began using the copyright
> paradigm to protect software. A fair number of people thought that was
> a bad idea, since copyright law was complex as it was. But still,
> 10-20 years ago, it was accepted that when you bought software, you
> bought, and owned, a *copy of the software*. Of course, if that
> paradigm had been followed rigorously, companies would have been
> obliged to provide free copies to public libraries for fair use...
>
> The classic example of this was Borland's "just like a book."
> liscence. You could use their products just like a book. You could
> loan your purchased copy to a friend, and he could use it, but only if
> it weren't installed on your system (and in use) as well. Quite simple
> and effective. Pity it never took off.
>
> Point being that the principle was that you purchased, and owned, a
> copy of the code, in the same way you purchased a book or a magazine.
> Of course, MS (and everyone else) made a point of including a liscence
> which stated -basically- that the software was worthless, warranteed
> to accomplish nothing, and if you used XXX software to manage your
> business, and lost money, it wasn't their fault. If, however, the
> floppies it came on were bad they would replace the physical media for
> a nominal fee. On the other hand, if you WERE caught copying this
> software (which, recall, was not warranteed for any "fitness or use")
> you agreed that the XXX company had the right to carry off your
> firstborn in compensation.
>
> Now a few years ago (after they had cornered about 95%+ of the market)
> MS realized that income from new sales had flattened out, and the only
> way to keep revenue coming in was change how they could charge for
> their software. That's when they dropped the original "buy a copy of
> the code" idea and moved on to "buy a *temporary liscense* to *use"
> their software." That way they can keep gouging people for updates,
> especially when they drop support for older platforms.
>
> Well, naturally they had to keep people from recycling all those
> copies of older, but (in many cases) perfectly usable software. So
> they decided to "limit" transferring software.
>
> What I want to see is the specific statute that says Darren can't do
> what he says he can. I don't care about how someone makes a living
> agreeing with MicroSoft's interpretation of copyright law, I want a
> specific citation, including a direct quote -from an actual statue-,
> which says that MS can get away with that crap.
>
> Aside from the fact that no one has taken Bill "I'm the richest man in
> the world" Gates to court about it yet, that is.
>
> On 02 Feb 2005 21:51:05 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:
>
>>Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
>>the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
>>I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
>>Dell system.
>>
>>But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
>>orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
>>well, you're in luck:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx
>>
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>