Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

[Dan]

I feel MEB has a valid concern that breaking laws in regards to software by
illegally copying it leads to more restrictions. I heard about the case at a
GameStop where someone sued Gamestop for selling them a used copy as new and
the only reason it wasn't new was someone returned the game because the
person did not like it. The lady lost the case but Gamestop changed their
policy of a 7 day return policy to a zero day return policy on new game
software unless the software is unopened and all the woman had to do was be
willing to just exchange the copy she was not satisfied with another game
copy. (Note: The stupidity of people is beyond even me sometimes)

"98 Guy" wrote:

> MEB wrote:
>
> > READ THE COPYRIGHT LAWS and other applicable for once
>
> Why can't you get it through your thick skull that I am questioning the
> basis or logic behind some aspects of the copyright laws.
>
> I am not disputing that the laws, as written, does give microsoft the
> right to take copyright violators to court, and that this probably
> extends to file, CD, and product-key sharing and the use of their
> products that results from this sharing, regardless that it's for a
> product they no longer sell.
>
> You (and others) obviously are incapable of having a philosophical
> discussion about why the benefit of copyright laws should extend to
> works that are no longer and will never again be produced by the
> rights-holder.
>
> I nonetheless invite you (or anyone else) to answer these previously
> proposed questions:
>
> | What exactly is copyright law protecting, or conveying what benefit
> | to Microsoft, with regard to the casual circulation and use of
> | Windows 98?
>
> | And who is violating copyright law? Those that obtain and use a
> | Windows-98 CD and/or product key, or those that provide those items
> | to others?
>

 

[Dan]

98 Guy, please leave Angel alone. Microsoft was is indeed a copy and for
economic reasons Microsoft decided to abandon the 9x source code. To this
day, I still firmly think this was a huge mistake because now hackers can
concentrate on one line of business source code and it has made consumers
activities lots more dangerous because there is not the distinction between
consumer and cooperate customer anymore. Hopefully, Microsoft will
eventually develop a new source code that is really good and has the best
elements of the 9x source code, the NT source code and perhaps using open
source unix/linunx technologies to make a really good product but until that
day we all do what we can and I cannot promote piracy even if the product has
been abandoned and you are just willing to check 1/3 of the product -- what
happens if the baddie is buried deep within the other 2/3rds in a hidden
directory?

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Angel wrote:
>
> > When I see a post like this, asking for a copy of a product that
> > is copyrighted, I wonder what goes through the mind of that
> > individual and the one the is trying to help him get a "free" copy.
>
> Maybe you should ask yourself why the manufacturer of the product no
> longer sells the product.
>
> Then ask youself what harm is coming to the manufacturer because of the
> obtainment of the "free" product.
>
> > I believe that those individuals have never heard of, or practiced
> > integrity and/or morals.
>
> What high horse did you fall off of?
>
> Why can't you get it through your thick skull that Microsoft suffered no
> harm, because it no longer sells Windows 98.
>
> > Maybe they just don't care who they cheat.
>
> Please explain how Microsoft was "cheated" in this event.
>
> > He may get a copy, but he may get an infected copy.
>
> After checking 1/3 of the contents, I'm satisfied that it was a clean
> copy.
>

 

[MEB]

This is the same garbage you attempted to extend the last time.. same
suggestions, different addressing points...

Rather than ask these baseless questions which raise no new material, why
not research the aspect of your issue with Microsoft and 9X to the extent of
presenting it to a court as a question for the court to answer??? Perhaps
with the abandonware, lack of use, and other you seem to believe separates
this issue from all the others of which and in which the courts HAVE
answered those questions.

This would achieve your supposed goal and answer ALL of your childlike
questions. Post your name and address and phone number with the illegal
commercial 9X software you "personally" offer free. Get yourself arrested
and then you will have your forum to expound from, your day in court...

My bet is that you will not do this because you are basically and
apparently gutless, moreover, without the knowledge or experience necessary
to support your claims. IN FACT, I AM quite sure you know there is no basis
for your presentation or your ideas regarding this path which you purport to
follow and continue to direct others to engage in.

So there it is, your soap box, your way to change the world: PUT UP OR SHUT
UP

--
MEB
a Peoples' counsel
--
_________



"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BD4449.FFE4DB60@Guy.com...
| MEB wrote:
|
| > READ THE COPYRIGHT LAWS and other applicable for once
|
| Why can't you get it through your thick skull that I am questioning the
| basis or logic behind some aspects of the copyright laws.
|
| I am not disputing that the laws, as written, does give microsoft the
| right to take copyright violators to court, and that this probably
| extends to file, CD, and product-key sharing and the use of their
| products that results from this sharing, regardless that it's for a
| product they no longer sell.
|
| You (and others) obviously are incapable of having a philosophical
| discussion about why the benefit of copyright laws should extend to
| works that are no longer and will never again be produced by the
| rights-holder.
|
| I nonetheless invite you (or anyone else) to answer these previously
| proposed questions:
|
| | What exactly is copyright law protecting, or conveying what benefit
| | to Microsoft, with regard to the casual circulation and use of
| | Windows 98?
|
| | And who is violating copyright law? Those that obtain and use a
| | Windows-98 CD and/or product key, or those that provide those items
| | to others?

 

[Don Phillipson]

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BC401A.7EFE1653@Guy.com...

> Anyways, someone once said the law is an ass.
> . . .
> I see it a lot like a patent.
>
> I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my own
> personal use, or perhaps for others so long as there is no direct
> financial gain for me. Only the patent holder can experience financial
> gain from the ideas contained in the patent (until the patent has
> expired).

You seem to be wrong about this point of law as well, cf. the recent
patenting (in the USA) of certain genes. This means they may
not be used at all without the permission of the patent holder.
Personal use or non-profit environments do not mitigate
the offence of illegal use of a patent.

elsewhere
> MEB wrote:
> > READ THE COPYRIGHT LAWS and other applicable for once

98 Guy wrote:
> Why can't you get it through your thick skull that I am questioning the
> basis or logic behind some aspects of the copyright laws.
>
> I am not disputing that the laws, as written . . .

Readers see your posts on two topics:
1. What current law says
2. The reasons or purposes underlying current law.

We cannot expect good discussion of #2 if first we get #1 wrong, for
example:
(a) " no longer in print or being stamped or sold, then
making copies of it and passing it around is not piracy."
(b) "I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my own
personal use, or perhaps for others so long as there is no direct
financial gain for me."

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[Angel]

Thanks Dan,

You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask. He
checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he is in for a
great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and no matter what. In his
own opinion, he is never wrong no matter what! He is just a Troll! looking
for someone to pick on.

Angel

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0999B314-BE50-4E90-9D7B-4E30F8F16B6E@microsoft.com...
: 98 Guy, please leave Angel alone. Microsoft was is indeed a copy and for
: economic reasons Microsoft decided to abandon the 9x source code. To this
: day, I still firmly think this was a huge mistake because now hackers can
: concentrate on one line of business source code and it has made consumers
: activities lots more dangerous because there is not the distinction
between
: consumer and cooperate customer anymore. Hopefully, Microsoft will
: eventually develop a new source code that is really good and has the best
: elements of the 9x source code, the NT source code and perhaps using open
: source unix/linunx technologies to make a really good product but until
that
: day we all do what we can and I cannot promote piracy even if the product
has
: been abandoned and you are just willing to check 1/3 of the product --
what
: happens if the baddie is buried deep within the other 2/3rds in a hidden
: directory?
:
: "98 Guy" wrote:
:
: > Angel wrote:
: >
: > > When I see a post like this, asking for a copy of a product that
: > > is copyrighted, I wonder what goes through the mind of that
: > > individual and the one the is trying to help him get a "free" copy.
: >
: > Maybe you should ask yourself why the manufacturer of the product no
: > longer sells the product.
: >
: > Then ask youself what harm is coming to the manufacturer because of the
: > obtainment of the "free" product.
: >
: > > I believe that those individuals have never heard of, or practiced
: > > integrity and/or morals.
: >
: > What high horse did you fall off of?
: >
: > Why can't you get it through your thick skull that Microsoft suffered no
: > harm, because it no longer sells Windows 98.
: >
: > > Maybe they just don't care who they cheat.
: >
: > Please explain how Microsoft was "cheated" in this event.
: >
: > > He may get a copy, but he may get an infected copy.
: >
: > After checking 1/3 of the contents, I'm satisfied that it was a clean
: > copy.
: >

 

[Buffalo]

Don Phillipson wrote:
> (a) " no longer in print or being stamped or sold, then
> making copies of it and passing it around is not piracy."
> (b) "I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my
> own personal use, or perhaps for others so long as there is no direct
> financial gain for me."
[snip]

It's a point of black and white for you and many others, but I really
believe that anyone can copy and give freely (without charge) a copy of
Win98SE to anyone they want to (not including the product key).
Your points are legal only, not common sense.
Total BS!

 

[Buffalo]

Angel wrote:
> Thanks Dan,
>
> You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask. He
> checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he is in
> for a great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and no matter
> what. In his own opinion, he is never wrong no matter what! He is
> just a Troll! looking for someone to pick on.
>
> Angel

And who might you just be??
An expert of some kind?

 

[glee]

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:svednaYG0o-3QSDVnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
> Don Phillipson wrote:
>> (a) " no longer in print or being stamped or sold, then
>> making copies of it and passing it around is not piracy."
>> (b) "I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my
>> own personal use, or perhaps for others so long as there is no direct
>> financial gain for me."
> [snip]
>
> It's a point of black and white for you and many others, but I really
> believe that anyone can copy and give freely (without charge) a copy of
> Win98SE to anyone they want to (not including the product key).
> Your points are legal only, not common sense.
> Total BS!

Not total BS, in that the sore point here is that not only is an image of the disc
being downloaded, but it includes multiple product keys with it.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[Bill in Co.]

Buffalo wrote:
> Angel wrote:
>> Thanks Dan,
>>
>> You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask. He
>> checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he is in
>> for a great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and no matter
>> what. In his own opinion, he is never wrong no matter what! He is
>> just a Troll! looking for someone to pick on.
>>
>> Angel
>
> And who might you just be??

She is Angel.

 

[Buffalo]

Bill in Co. wrote:
> Buffalo wrote:
>> Angel wrote:
>>> Thanks Dan,
>>>
>>> You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask.
>>> He checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he
>>> is in for a great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and
>>> no matter what. In his own opinion, he is never wrong no matter
>>> what! He is just a Troll! looking for someone to pick on.
>>>
>>> Angel
>>
>> And who might you just be??
>
> She is Angel.

Well, Duh? I think he (98 Guy) knows a hell of a lot more about Win98
and computers than Angel.

 

[Dan]

You are most welcome. I am glad we are on the same thought process here,
Angel.

"Angel" wrote:

> Thanks Dan,
>
> You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask. He
> checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he is in for a
> great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and no matter what. In his
> own opinion, he is never wrong no matter what! He is just a Troll! looking
> for someone to pick on.
>
> Angel
>
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0999B314-BE50-4E90-9D7B-4E30F8F16B6E@microsoft.com...
> : 98 Guy, please leave Angel alone. Microsoft was is indeed a copy and for
> : economic reasons Microsoft decided to abandon the 9x source code. To this
> : day, I still firmly think this was a huge mistake because now hackers can
> : concentrate on one line of business source code and it has made consumers
> : activities lots more dangerous because there is not the distinction
> between
> : consumer and cooperate customer anymore. Hopefully, Microsoft will
> : eventually develop a new source code that is really good and has the best
> : elements of the 9x source code, the NT source code and perhaps using open
> : source unix/linunx technologies to make a really good product but until
> that
> : day we all do what we can and I cannot promote piracy even if the product
> has
> : been abandoned and you are just willing to check 1/3 of the product --
> what
> : happens if the baddie is buried deep within the other 2/3rds in a hidden
> : directory?
> :
> : "98 Guy" wrote:
> :
> : > Angel wrote:
> : >
> : > > When I see a post like this, asking for a copy of a product that
> : > > is copyrighted, I wonder what goes through the mind of that
> : > > individual and the one the is trying to help him get a "free" copy.
> : >
> : > Maybe you should ask yourself why the manufacturer of the product no
> : > longer sells the product.
> : >
> : > Then ask youself what harm is coming to the manufacturer because of the
> : > obtainment of the "free" product.
> : >
> : > > I believe that those individuals have never heard of, or practiced
> : > > integrity and/or morals.
> : >
> : > What high horse did you fall off of?
> : >
> : > Why can't you get it through your thick skull that Microsoft suffered no
> : > harm, because it no longer sells Windows 98.
> : >
> : > > Maybe they just don't care who they cheat.
> : >
> : > Please explain how Microsoft was "cheated" in this event.
> : >
> : > > He may get a copy, but he may get an infected copy.
> : >
> : > After checking 1/3 of the contents, I'm satisfied that it was a clean
> : > copy.
> : >
>
>
>

 

[Dan]

LOL, good one, Bill in Co.

"Bill in Co." wrote:

> Buffalo wrote:
> > Angel wrote:
> >> Thanks Dan,
> >>
> >> You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask. He
> >> checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he is in
> >> for a great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and no matter
> >> what. In his own opinion, he is never wrong no matter what! He is
> >> just a Troll! looking for someone to pick on.
> >>
> >> Angel
> >
> > And who might you just be??
>
> She is Angel.
>
>
>

 

[Dan]

98 Guy may know a lot more about computers but respect plays a great part in
this newsgroup, imo.

"Buffalo" wrote:

>
>
> Bill in Co. wrote:
> > Buffalo wrote:
> >> Angel wrote:
> >>> Thanks Dan,
> >>>
> >>> You have just asked "98 Guy" the same question I was going to ask.
> >>> He checked ONLY 1/3rd of the downloaded Pirated Win98SE? Maybe he
> >>> is in for a great surprise!! Of course, he is a "know it all" and
> >>> no matter what. In his own opinion, he is never wrong no matter
> >>> what! He is just a Troll! looking for someone to pick on.
> >>>
> >>> Angel
> >>
> >> And who might you just be??
> >
> > She is Angel.
>
> Well, Duh? I think he (98 Guy) knows a hell of a lot more about Win98
> and computers than Angel.
>
>
>

 

[98 Guy]

MEB wrote:

> This is the same garbage you attempted to extend the last time..

Why does a work that is no longer and WILL NEVER AGAIN be manufactured
or sold deserve copyright protection?

How is the holder of such a work harmed by the non-profit,
non-commercial replication and use of that work?

And don't blow off those questions by telling me to do research.

If you don't know the answer to those questions, or if you don't have an
opinion yourself, then don't bother to respond.

 

[98 Guy]

Don Phillipson wrote:

> > I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my own
> > personal use,

> You seem to be wrong about this point of law as well,

There are exemptions for research or to ascertain the performance or
practicality of a patent. Personal use would or could be part of those
exemptions.

> Readers see your posts on two topics:
> 1. What current law says
> 2. The reasons or purposes underlying current law.
>
> We cannot expect good discussion of #2 if first we get #1 wrong,

It's my opinion that a work that is no longer and will never again be
manufactured or sold should not enjoy copyright protection.

It's my opinion that "piracy" is a term used to describe the replication
or distribution of a work that is providing a revenue stream for the
work's rightful owner. If the work is no longer offered for commercial
sale, then it has no value to the owner and hence can't be pirated. In
this case, replication does not equal piracy.

 

[James Hahn]

This is the silliest argument I have seen in a long time.

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BE0D42.6A14C893@Guy.com...
>
> Why does a work that is no longer and WILL NEVER AGAIN be manufactured
> or sold deserve copyright protection?
>
> How is the holder of such a work harmed by the non-profit,
> non-commercial replication and use of that work?
>
> And don't blow off those questions by telling me to do research.
>

Firstly, why don't you do the research that has been suggested and look
through the development of copyright law in some example jurisdictions
around the world. When you find a single jurisdiction that ties the
enforcement of copyright to some potential or actual ability of the
rights-holder to profit from the creative work, come and show it to us as an
example of how you believe copyright law should be written.

You have confused the reasons for copyright protection with the patent laws,
which do have some connections to commercial realities for a patentable
item. The two forms of protection exist for entirely different reasons.

Do you surf the www? Have you noticed that a lot of the material on the www
is subject to copyright? How much of that material is generating revenue
for the rights-holder? I would guess that only a tiny fraction of
copyrighted www sites actually make money. So how do you think those
rights-holders would react if told that their attempt to prevent others from
using their creative works depends on whether or not they can make a dollar
out of them? Not only do I believe I can predict their reaction, but I
would be confident their complaints would mirror very closely the arguments
on which the current copyright law has been developed over the years.

Secondly, you have chosen to discusss the issue in terms of copyright
because you have a particular viewpoint on that topic that happens to suit
your purpose. It suits you to pretend that you are only breaking a law that
you believe is not supportable. In fact, the law being broken here, which
was also pointed out very early on, is incitement to theft. The supplier
does not own the product, and making copies, or allowing copies to be made,
is theft. Yes, it's intellectual property rather than a physical item, but
most jurisdictions around the world no longer make any distincion between IP
and real goods.

Try arguing your point of view in terms of the law that's being broken
here, not in terms of some theoretical concept of what the copyright law
ought to be in order to justify your actions.

 

[~BD~]

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BC70AE.4194BBDC@Guy.com...
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> > May Jesus protect me from those that believe in Him.
>>
>> He won't - of that you may be certain!
>
> Oh don't worry. I'm quite certain of the limitations of a fictional
> character.
>
>> You are 'standing into danger' my friend.
>
> That's an odd phrase - "standing into danger".
>

Not odd at all ............. especially if one has a nautical bent! )

BD

--

 

[MEB]

To add to the above:

The determinative action is the right to *distribute* or not,,, Microsoft
holds that right, you and others hold no such authority...

As indicated, it is a theft of not only intellectual property, patented
code [some of it anyway], and other, but the more importantly, the
distribution right.
The Law has already stated WHEN you would have right to distribute upon
expiration doing so before such expiration IS a criminal act.

The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft has
purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have that right...
yeah sure, so if the car dealer refuses to sell that *classic* car, you
should be able to steal it and sell or give it away... go ahead try any of
what you suggest, but make sure you put your name, address, and phone number
on it so you can get the credit...98 was a commercial item previously For
Sale, which the seller has now determined is no longer offered.

Since NO ONE other than Microsoft has ever actually OWNED the software, you
have absolutely no authority.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________



"James Hahn" <jhahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23hKNbqYDJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| This is the silliest argument I have seen in a long time.
|
| "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BE0D42.6A14C893@Guy.com...
| >
| > Why does a work that is no longer and WILL NEVER AGAIN be manufactured
| > or sold deserve copyright protection?
| >
| > How is the holder of such a work harmed by the non-profit,
| > non-commercial replication and use of that work?
| >
| > And don't blow off those questions by telling me to do research.
| >
|
| Firstly, why don't you do the research that has been suggested and look
| through the development of copyright law in some example jurisdictions
| around the world. When you find a single jurisdiction that ties the
| enforcement of copyright to some potential or actual ability of the
| rights-holder to profit from the creative work, come and show it to us as
an
| example of how you believe copyright law should be written.
|
| You have confused the reasons for copyright protection with the patent
laws,
| which do have some connections to commercial realities for a patentable
| item. The two forms of protection exist for entirely different reasons.
|
| Do you surf the www? Have you noticed that a lot of the material on the
www
| is subject to copyright? How much of that material is generating revenue
| for the rights-holder? I would guess that only a tiny fraction of
| copyrighted www sites actually make money. So how do you think those
| rights-holders would react if told that their attempt to prevent others
from
| using their creative works depends on whether or not they can make a
dollar
| out of them? Not only do I believe I can predict their reaction, but I
| would be confident their complaints would mirror very closely the
arguments
| on which the current copyright law has been developed over the years.
|
| Secondly, you have chosen to discusss the issue in terms of copyright
| because you have a particular viewpoint on that topic that happens to suit
| your purpose. It suits you to pretend that you are only breaking a law
that
| you believe is not supportable. In fact, the law being broken here, which
| was also pointed out very early on, is incitement to theft. The supplier
| does not own the product, and making copies, or allowing copies to be
made,
| is theft. Yes, it's intellectual property rather than a physical item,
but
| most jurisdictions around the world no longer make any distincion between
IP
| and real goods.
|
| Try arguing your point of view in terms of the law that's being broken
| here, not in terms of some theoretical concept of what the copyright law
| ought to be in order to justify your actions.
|

 

[glee]

Inline....
"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BE1079.34466439@Guy.com...
> Don Phillipson wrote:
>
>> > I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my own
>> > personal use,
>
>> You seem to be wrong about this point of law as well,
>
> There are exemptions for research or to ascertain the performance or
> practicality of a patent. Personal use would or could be part of those
> exemptions.


You can make up anything you like, but "personal use" does not fit those
descriptions.


>> Readers see your posts on two topics:
>> 1. What current law says
>> 2. The reasons or purposes underlying current law.
>>
>> We cannot expect good discussion of #2 if first we get #1 wrong,
>
> It's my opinion that a work that is no longer and will never again be
> manufactured or sold should not enjoy copyright protection.
>
> It's my opinion that "piracy" is a term used to describe the replication
> or distribution of a work that is providing a revenue stream for the
> work's rightful owner. If the work is no longer offered for commercial
> sale, then it has no value to the owner and hence can't be pirated. In
> this case, replication does not equal piracy.

You don't get it, obviously. It has nothing to do with revenue stream as far as the
law goes. It is protection of intellectual property, regardless of whether there is
any revenue involved, or whether the OS is sold or still updated/supported in terms
of receiving new code from the maker.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

 

[pebble]

Well I reckon all's fair in love, war and internet use. B-)


pebble in Boulder