If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
gluino wrote:
Thanks for the input. Might it be "OK" in weaker sense? Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of enforcement? Not OK in principle, but OK in practice? It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate environment where they believe that they would expose their company to some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license. Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting. In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho setting. The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98 installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the (enforcement?) status is of the product. Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing (remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is the valid license holder for the corresponding product key. My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product, then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it. Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98 at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss. Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable. Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it. So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98 will never again be "printed" by Microsoft. There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows 98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate document that is not even signed by anyone. Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98 license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited. There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies to you in this thread. You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help you in this regard. So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed - only corporations and computer shops that sell computers. If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
On 07/30/2009 09:43 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
gluino wrote: Thanks for the input. Might it be "OK" in weaker sense? Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of enforcement? Not OK in principle, but OK in practice? It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate environment where they believe that they would expose their company to some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license. Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting. In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho setting. The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98 installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the (enforcement?) status is of the product. Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing (remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is the valid license holder for the corresponding product key. My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product, then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it. Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98 at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss. Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable. Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it. So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98 will never again be "printed" by Microsoft. There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows 98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate document that is not even signed by anyone. Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98 license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited. There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies to you in this thread. You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help you in this regard. So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed - only corporations and computer shops that sell computers. If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002. As usual 98 Guy's arguments have no basis except in that entities own limited mind... IF this querier is thinking about using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the Salvation Army... who also thought they could use and transfer OS and other software products... they could not. Might also want to look at other prosecutions... such as for illegal music downloads in which it is discovered that even the operating system was pirated. No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law... So per usual, ignore 98 Guy. -- ~ -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government _______ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
On 07/30/2009 09:43 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
gluino wrote: Thanks for the input. Might it be "OK" in weaker sense? Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of enforcement? Not OK in principle, but OK in practice? It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate environment where they believe that they would expose their company to some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license. Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting. In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho setting. The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98 installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the (enforcement?) status is of the product. Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing (remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is the valid license holder for the corresponding product key. My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product, then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it. Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98 at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss. Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable. Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it. So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98 will never again be "printed" by Microsoft. There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows 98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate document that is not even signed by anyone. Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98 license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited. There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies to you in this thread. You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help you in this regard. So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed - only corporations and computer shops that sell computers. If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002. As usual 98 Guy's arguments have no basis except in that entities own limited mind... IF this querier is thinking about using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the Salvation Army... who also thought they could use and transfer OS and other software products... they could not. Might also want to look at other prosecutions... such as for illegal music downloads in which it is discovered that even the operating system was pirated. No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law... So per usual, ignore 98 Guy. -- ~ -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government _______ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
Bozo the clown full-quoted:
IF this querier is thinking about (...) Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about (...)" ? Do you have to use the word "querier" ? Do you always have to be so obtuse? using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want The party? Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on! to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the Salvation Army... No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law... Don't you mean: "No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real information or knowledge" ? If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses, then prove it by posting a URL. You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for license violation. Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted here in the past? On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote: Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their lawyers often threaten people in these group, Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward? Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I don't see them here. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
Bozo the clown full-quoted:
IF this querier is thinking about (...) Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about (...)" ? Do you have to use the word "querier" ? Do you always have to be so obtuse? using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want The party? Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on! to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the Salvation Army... No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law... Don't you mean: "No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real information or knowledge" ? If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses, then prove it by posting a URL. You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for license violation. Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted here in the past? On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote: Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their lawyers often threaten people in these group, Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward? Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I don't see them here. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
On 07/31/2009 12:39 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Bozo the clown full-quoted: IF this querier is thinking about (...) Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about (...)" ? Do you have to use the word "querier" ? Do you always have to be so obtuse? Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't.... Any idea what query means??? using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want The party? Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on! to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the Salvation Army... No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law... Don't you mean: "No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real information or knowledge" ? No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses preserved INTACT. Do you understand how you are received world-wide??? We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,, If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses, then prove it by posting a URL. You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for license violation. You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings, this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... or the solicitors or what ever is applicable in whatever nation applicable... software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings, the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers or anything else, and more importantly may never appear in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL... Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted here in the past? On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote: Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their lawyers often threaten people in these group, Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward? Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I don't see them here. They don't need to be... you make a fool out of yourself EVERY time you post... do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you??? Or cares about you??? We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own lap,, believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now.... -- ~ -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government _______ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
On 07/31/2009 12:39 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Bozo the clown full-quoted: IF this querier is thinking about (...) Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about (...)" ? Do you have to use the word "querier" ? Do you always have to be so obtuse? Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't.... Any idea what query means??? using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want The party? Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on! to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the Salvation Army... No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law... Don't you mean: "No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real information or knowledge" ? No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses preserved INTACT. Do you understand how you are received world-wide??? We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,, If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses, then prove it by posting a URL. You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for license violation. You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings, this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... or the solicitors or what ever is applicable in whatever nation applicable... software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings, the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers or anything else, and more importantly may never appear in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL... Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted here in the past? On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote: Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their lawyers often threaten people in these group, Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward? Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I don't see them here. They don't need to be... you make a fool out of yourself EVERY time you post... do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you??? Or cares about you??? We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own lap,, believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now.... -- ~ -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government _______ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
Bozo wrote:
Do you have to use the word "querier" ? Do you always have to be so obtuse? Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't.... And naturally you won't venture your own interpretation of OP for fear of exposing yourself in some way, just as you expose very little real information or knowledge in any of your posts. OP can me "Original Post" or "Original Poster" depending on the context. Now was that so hard to state? What did you hope to gain by having me state it, instead of yourself? IF this querier is thinking about (...) You could have also said: "IF gluino is thinking about (...)" Any idea what query means??? A query is a question. You were refering to the person asking the question when you wrote: IF this querier is thinking about (...) Which means you had to convert it to the rarely-used (and clumsy-sounding) noun form, for reasons known only to you, and for which in your next reply you will not elaborate why. No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses preserved INTACT. Why would anyone not be able to see my full and intact posts? My posts are a part of this or any thread just as yours are. If someone can find your posts, they will also find mine, hence there is no reason why you need to full-quote my material (or anyone elses) in your reply. You also have never acknowledged that when viewing old threads in google groups, that google by default does not display quoted material because they realize that people often (and lazily) do not edit their replies and include vast amounts of quoted material for no purpose which makes reading a thread a tedious task. Do you understand how you are received world-wide??? Tell me how, and include references in your answer. Otherwise you've just asked a vacuous question. We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,, Who is we? And what is my kind? You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for license violation. You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings, I can't recall that you've ever posted a URL containing information on a court case or law suit that actually pertained to a case that was discussed here. Again we see your standard response to a direct question, which is "I've already posted it once before", which is naturally a diversion designed to mask either your laziness or your inability to find a relavent URL. this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; The same broken spiel is yours. You keep bringing up fictional legal cases and I keep asking for URL's, and you obfuscate and divert. AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... Why don't you give an example where a gov't agency or police dept. has prosecuted someone for software copyright or license violation without the copyright holder's involvement or initiation of the case? The truth is that the copyright holder must be involved, and must have practically initiated the court action (civil or criminal) because the gov't has no case unless the copyright holder provides evidence of a copyright or license violation. Only the copyright holder has that evidence - not the state. software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings, What are you smoking? If Microsoft wants remedy for civil dammages, then they must certainly start a civil case. The only time that gov't law enforcement will start a criminal case is when they stumble upon a CD duplication operation or a large cache of boxed disks. Law enforcement does not seek out or monitor individuals (either on the street, in their homes, or on the net) and intiate copyright violation or software piracy proceedings against them. the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers or anything else, A law enforcement agency will not intiate a case of software piracy against an individual without the cooperation of the copyright holder, and almost certainly without the initiation of the copyright holder. A law enforcement agency will not, on it's own, possess the evidence necessary to convict an individul of software piracy / copyright or license violation. If the copyright holder does not come forward and provide evidence of copyright violation, the case will be thrown out. and more importantly may never appear in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL... Are you saying that their may never be a public record of a criminal judgement against an individual? So we now have secret courts? Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I don't see them here. They don't need to be... I never said they "need to be". A statement was made by someone else that they once *were* here. I asked for evidence of their posts, nothing more. Why are you such a dolt? do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you??? Or cares about you??? Your questions say a lot about you and your state of mind. You are attempting to strike some sort of emotional nerve by asking those questions. Obviously, the need to impress or be cared for by others is very important to you. You feel that you do impress others and that those others care about you, and you want me to believe that for me it is the opposite. Once again, I suggest you seek out psychiatric care. We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own lap,, And what, exactly, is "this" ? believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now.... I think there's medication that can help with that. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Win98 now considered abandonware?
Bozo wrote:
Do you have to use the word "querier" ? Do you always have to be so obtuse? Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't.... And naturally you won't venture your own interpretation of OP for fear of exposing yourself in some way, just as you expose very little real information or knowledge in any of your posts. OP can me "Original Post" or "Original Poster" depending on the context. Now was that so hard to state? What did you hope to gain by having me state it, instead of yourself? IF this querier is thinking about (...) You could have also said: "IF gluino is thinking about (...)" Any idea what query means??? A query is a question. You were refering to the person asking the question when you wrote: IF this querier is thinking about (...) Which means you had to convert it to the rarely-used (and clumsy-sounding) noun form, for reasons known only to you, and for which in your next reply you will not elaborate why. No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses preserved INTACT. Why would anyone not be able to see my full and intact posts? My posts are a part of this or any thread just as yours are. If someone can find your posts, they will also find mine, hence there is no reason why you need to full-quote my material (or anyone elses) in your reply. You also have never acknowledged that when viewing old threads in google groups, that google by default does not display quoted material because they realize that people often (and lazily) do not edit their replies and include vast amounts of quoted material for no purpose which makes reading a thread a tedious task. Do you understand how you are received world-wide??? Tell me how, and include references in your answer. Otherwise you've just asked a vacuous question. We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,, Who is we? And what is my kind? You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for license violation. You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings, I can't recall that you've ever posted a URL containing information on a court case or law suit that actually pertained to a case that was discussed here. Again we see your standard response to a direct question, which is "I've already posted it once before", which is naturally a diversion designed to mask either your laziness or your inability to find a relavent URL. this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; The same broken spiel is yours. You keep bringing up fictional legal cases and I keep asking for URL's, and you obfuscate and divert. AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... Why don't you give an example where a gov't agency or police dept. has prosecuted someone for software copyright or license violation without the copyright holder's involvement or initiation of the case? The truth is that the copyright holder must be involved, and must have practically initiated the court action (civil or criminal) because the gov't has no case unless the copyright holder provides evidence of a copyright or license violation. Only the copyright holder has that evidence - not the state. software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings, What are you smoking? If Microsoft wants remedy for civil dammages, then they must certainly start a civil case. The only time that gov't law enforcement will start a criminal case is when they stumble upon a CD duplication operation or a large cache of boxed disks. Law enforcement does not seek out or monitor individuals (either on the street, in their homes, or on the net) and intiate copyright violation or software piracy proceedings against them. the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers or anything else, A law enforcement agency will not intiate a case of software piracy against an individual without the cooperation of the copyright holder, and almost certainly without the initiation of the copyright holder. A law enforcement agency will not, on it's own, possess the evidence necessary to convict an individul of software piracy / copyright or license violation. If the copyright holder does not come forward and provide evidence of copyright violation, the case will be thrown out. and more importantly may never appear in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL... Are you saying that their may never be a public record of a criminal judgement against an individual? So we now have secret courts? Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I don't see them here. They don't need to be... I never said they "need to be". A statement was made by someone else that they once *were* here. I asked for evidence of their posts, nothing more. Why are you such a dolt? do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you??? Or cares about you??? Your questions say a lot about you and your state of mind. You are attempting to strike some sort of emotional nerve by asking those questions. Obviously, the need to impress or be cared for by others is very important to you. You feel that you do impress others and that those others care about you, and you want me to believe that for me it is the opposite. Once again, I suggest you seek out psychiatric care. We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own lap,, And what, exactly, is "this" ? believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now.... I think there's medication that can help with that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinMe Joins Abandonware | AAH | General | 8 | October 19th 04 12:04 AM |
Win98 DHCP problems (AKA why I hate Win98) | Bjorn Toft Madsen | Networking | 4 | October 13th 04 07:04 PM |
Win98 with Win98 share file | Lai | Networking | 0 | September 17th 04 07:47 AM |
Upgrade Win98 First Edition to Win98 SE | jrystar | Software & Applications | 1 | July 20th 04 06:17 PM |
win98 and xp problem + not logging in to win98 machine | Mike Ryan | Networking | 4 | June 10th 04 02:35 AM |