Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition

B

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

Sorry about my last post about you Angel, I just had to yell at someone
yesterday.
My apologies.
Buffalo
 
B

~BD~

"Angel" <angel@noway.com> wrote in message
news:uUtPHcUDJHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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.

<snip>

--

Hi Angel! :)

Is it possible that this is *your* web site?

http://www.i-techangel.com/

Even if it's not, Dan may enjoy it! (maybe you too!)

Dave

--
 
A

Angel

Buffalo,
Apology accepted.
Angel

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:iLydnVKf15ASASPVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com...
:
:
: 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
:
: Sorry about my last post about you Angel, I just had to yell at someone
: yesterday.
: My apologies.
: Buffalo
:
:
 
D

Don Phillipson

"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?

Desert has nothing to do with it. If your Aunt Flossie
writes poems they become by that act her intellectual
property. If she publishes a book that sells 12 copies
and is then remaindered and pulped, thus unobtainable,
the poems remain her property for either X years or her lifetime
plus Y years, depending on the country concerned. This means
no one else has the right to repriint them. Desert (yours or mine
or Aunt Flossie's) has nothing to do with this property right.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
 
A

Angel

Buffalo,

Maybe (98 Guy) knows more about computers, I am learning more about them
every day. He seems to know NOTHING about Scruples, Morals and Integrity, or
he just doesn't care about what the difference is between right and wrong.
This subject has nothing to do with computer knowledge. This concerns the
difference between right and wrong, scruples, morality and integrity,
nothing else.

Angel

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:mPidnVvSDKOGYyDVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com...
:
:
: 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.
:
:
 
A

Angel

Dave,

No, it is not my website. No, I have not even tried to go to it. Don't think
I will go to it neither. I am too busy!!

Angel

"~BD~" <~BD~@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23s7spEeDJHA.5196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
:
: "Angel" <angel@noway.com> wrote in message
: news:uUtPHcUDJHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
: > 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.
:
: <snip>
:
: --
:
: Hi Angel! :)
:
: Is it possible that this is *your* web site?
:
: http://www.i-techangel.com/
:
: Even if it's not, Dan may enjoy it! (maybe you too!)
:
: Dave
:
: --
:
:
 
M

MEB

Let me clarify some of the main items which apply
{NOTE: this is NOT a full listing] :

Right to distribute
Ownership
Patented code
Trademark
Copyright
limited contract [like lease]

Every time someone unlawfully distributes the OS OR knowingly uses such
unlawful software, they commit and/or violate:
the above
theft
fraud
defraud
contractual violations.

Who has responsibility to prosecute?
Every prosecutor, solicitor, barrister, attorney general, and the like
across the world for defined criminal violations.

As I previously indicated to you and others in prior discussions, Microsoft
ENJOYS the full protections of ALL applicable Law in EVERY nation. That's
every: Treaty code and/or statute [such as U.C.C] commercial agreements
[public and private] NAFTA WTO EUCA/EUTA U.N. agreements, international
Laws, and Treaties etc..

Need Microsoft complain? No, the Laws are specific in that it lay with the
legally defined responsible parties to protect it.
Microsoft CAN, however, take issue with ANY responsible party, anywhere,
who FAILS to protect it. Politics can apply, but the shear weight that
Microsoft brings to bear can effectuate compliance.

The "gray area" lay in the updates and modifications [such as the 2004
Security CD or other *updates*]. These REQUIRE a Microsoft OS to have the
valuable consideration of use without the OS they are essentially valueless
[other than to Microsoft] because they can not be used without the OS. Take
all of the updates or modifications, put them together and you will not have
a working environment.
Therein lay the issue if they have no use UNLESS there is a qualifying OS
lawfully held, distribution WITHOUT costs [commercial enrichment] seems to
qualify more as a public service IMO. Even here though there are other "gray
areas" such as modifications to those update files [Such as: does this
extend reverse engineering principles?]. There again though, without a
qualifying OS, they also are essentially useless [though not without value].
Another "gray area" lays within the disallowance that seems to imply within
the EULA concerning use of your lawfully held CDROM or files, and its use
upon another's lawfully held computer with a separately licensed OS [such as
for a repair], wherein the controlling terms and conditions seem to be
overly broad and unduly restrictive.

You asked for my opinion:

I have previously posted that in my opinion, Microsoft should release this
code to the public arena. Microsoft should also relieve the users of their
present contractual agreements. It is clear that the newer computers do not
[for the most part] support the coding limitations within the 9X
environment. The designed in limitations of the OSs [95, 98, 98SE, ME] also
would preclude the type of computing that many/most people now desire.
Manufacturers MIGHT begin producing legacy boards and devices, but the user
base is not all that great. Hence, the commercial value to Microsoft is
essentially non-existent.
The applicable patents [such as Fat32 e.g., specific to 9X/DOS] also seems
to be essentially valueless when taken with the newer HD sizes and other
hardware and chipsets. There are other aspects which would also appear to
indicate that the commercial/investor value is essential non-existent to
Microsoft, so public release would NOT seem to support a resurgence of
computers which CAN run the OS to Microsoft's detriment. In fact, that MIGHT
help with Microsoft's public relationship, which is not all that great
around the world.

I came to this discussion group *in this public form* prior to the "End of
Support"/End of Life for 9X [about a year or so before]. I was fully
prepared to brief on behalf of the affected People related to WHY there
should be continuation, OR that it should be released to the public for
further development/use. No one apparently had any major problems or voiced
much discontent, and, really, still don't. Of the potential millions still
using the 9X OSs, those voicing support for even the code release are
insufficient/insignificant.
I also personally take issue with the apparent fact that manufacturers have
removed support files, and/or as some suggest, removed support from files
which previously had such contained within them.
I also take personal issue with the fact that the programming environments
have apparently complete removed or intentionally disabled the ability to
program for the 9X code environment. There is no need and would not cause
undue issues if still included within those applications. As I have
previously indicated, the 9X code environment is "stable" [un-changing] so
there is no need to constantly modify anything within the application's
programming [the actual programming application]. Here its
mostly/apparently, merely a matter of cutting and pasting the coding
specific to 9X within the programming application when its updated. The code
already exists there is no apparent reason not to include it [of course
that would still require the Libraries and other for the 9X code
environment]. We can see SOME manufacturer's still including 9X support, so
that's a rather obvious display of how easy it is to continue support, and
we also can find a small number still provide multiple cross platform
applications [9X through VISTA] so that also indicates that is easily
achievable..

HOWEVER:

Until Microsoft releases its holds on 9X code and the users, what you
intend and openly solicit is unlawful, illegal, and criminal in nature. That
you have openly admitted to such activities in a public forum appears to
indicate you are not a very intelligent person.

--
MEB
a Peoples' counsel
--
_________
 
B

~BD~

Reply below.

"Angel" <angel@noway.com> wrote in message news:ueJFDPgDJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Dave,
>
> No, it is not my website. No, I have not even tried to go to it. Don't think
> I will go to it neither. I am too busy!!
>
> Angel
>
> "~BD~" <~BD~@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23s7spEeDJHA.5196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> :
> : "Angel" <angel@noway.com> wrote in message
> : news:uUtPHcUDJHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> : > 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.
> :
> : <snip>
> :
> : --
> :
> : Hi Angel! :)
> :
> : Is it possible that this is *your* web site?
> :
> : http://www.i-techangel.com/
> :
> : Even if it's not, Dan may enjoy it! (maybe you too!)
> :
> : Dave
> :
> : --



Well, thank you for taking the time to let me know, Angel. :)

Dave

--
 
B

Bill in Co.

Angel wrote:
> Buffalo,
>
> Maybe (98 Guy) knows more about computers, I am learning more about them
> every day. He seems to know NOTHING about Scruples, Morals and Integrity,
> or
> he just doesn't care about what the difference is between right and wrong.
> This subject has nothing to do with computer knowledge. This concerns the
> difference between right and wrong, scruples, morality and integrity,
> nothing else.
> Angel

"scruples, morality and integrity"??? Wrong era and wrong generation for
that! You old fogie, you!!!!


> "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mPidnVvSDKOGYyDVnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> 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.
 
9

98 Guy

James Hahn wrote:

> > 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

Why don't you provide a counter-argument.

Why should a work that *will never again* be manufactured or sold need
copyright protection?

Why should such a work deserve copyright protection?

If you know the reason, or you have a logical argument, then state it.

If *you* want to perform research to come up with a counter argument,
then do so. The onus is on you (or MEB) to provide a counter argument.

> 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,

I never said that copyright benefits should take into account the
potential for gain, revenue or profit.

A more rational copyright law could be structured as:

a) a work that was never made public could / would be protected.

b) a work that has been made public, and continues to be, could / would
be protected.

c) A work that was once made public, but has ceased to be so for some
period of time, would lose some of it's protection.

By "made public", I mean any form of presentation to the public, be it
as an exhibition, broadcast, reproduction for sale or lease, etc.

In a way that is similar to the protection given by a patent. A patent
is a form of intellectual property that is disclosed in return for a
period of protection to allow the patent holder to profit from the
patent. It does not require the holder to do anything, and indeed the
holder may do nothing to seek financial gain from the patent.

A copyrighted work is also a form of intellectual property. One can
argue that software should not be copyrighted but instead should be
patented because sofware performs work or exhibits functionality, while
most or all conventional forms of copyrighted materials (music, movies,
books, art, etc) do not perform work or have any inherent functionality
of any sort.

So instead of enacting a time-limited protection for software that
starts the moment it is made available to the public, a comprimise would
be that software would have full copyright protection while it is
publically available, but would lose some aspects of it's protection
perhaps several years after it is has been withdrawn from public
availability.
 
9

98 Guy

~BD~ wrote:

> >> 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! )

Well, then, in that case - wouldn't "sailing into danger" be better?
 
9

98 Guy

MEB wrote:

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

So those that are selling Windows on E-bay are violating copyright law -
are they not?

Aren't they "distributing" it - by way of sale?

> The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft
> has purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have
> that right...

What is really the issue is the USE of Windows 98 in a way that violates
the EULA.

I might burn a copy of Windows-98 on a stack of CD's and put them in a
closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of revenue for
Microsoft?

Does that violate the EULA? How would I know what the EULA is unless I
stick one of those CD's into a computer and boot it? What if I never
do?

I might hand out each CD to a friend, and they all might throw it away
or put it in their closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of
revenue for Microsoft?

The real issue is not really that CD's are copied or torrents are
transfering copies of the CD between people.

What matters is this:

Are there any installations of Windows-98 where the license to use the
software can't be traced back to a lawful sale of said licence by
Microsoft?

For example - if Microsoft sold a total of 100 million Windows-98
licenses world-wide, but if at any given point in time there were 100
million and 1 functioning installations of Windows-98, then it could be
said that Microsoft has been harmed and has suffered some financial loss
due to the 1 install that has no corresponding legal license.

There may now (in 2008) be 10 million functioning installations of
Windows 98, which means there are 90 million licenses that have become
lost, abandoned or discarded. Microsoft can't claim harm, even today,
unless the number of systems running Windows-98 rises to above 100
million, or the number of copies of windows-98 being made available for
sale (on e-bay, etc) exceeds 90 million.

> 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...

Microsoft has already sold the rights (or licences) for millions of
individual installations of Windows-98.

It's like there are millions of that "classic car". Some have owners
who are driving them. Most are sitting around, abandond, on the street,
in the wilderness, in the garbage dump - and you can just go and take
them. Once a car company has sold a car to the first purchaser (which
is usually the dealer) they have no interest in the car after that -
like the ownership history, who buys it from who, who steals it from
whom, etc.

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

But someone DID purchase a license to USE the software, and that license
is NOT time-limited and there is NO prohibition against transfer.

The replication or distribution of a win-98 CD is irrelevant - I might
use it as a coaster or frisbee.

It's the installation and use of win-98 with or without a bona fide
license (product key) - that IS the issue.

Because in the end, as you say, Microsoft is selling the RIGHT to USE
the the software. And once they sell _a_ right, that right continues to
exist regardless who possesses it or how they came to possess it.
 
J

James Hahn

Please see my comments in-line.

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BF303F.1043D2CE@Guy.com...
> James Hahn wrote:
>
>> > 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
>
> Why don't you provide a counter-argument.
>

There is no counter-argument to anyone who simply says "I think it ought to
be different than it is because that seems more sensible to me" which is the
sum total of the arguments you have put forward. You have not addressed any
of the points that have been part of the whole process of the establishment
of copyright protection across a wide range of jurisdictions over many
years. Provide one reason why you believe the original creator of a
copyrightable work is not entitled to protect that work from copying, and
maybe people will attempt to provide the evidence to disprove it. Don't just
say "because I can't see any reason" - you can't see any reason because you
haven't done the research. Unless you are prepared to say just how you can
dismiss all the argument and evidence about the value to the community that
derives from the ability to protect creative works, then there is no
argument to counter. But you can't do that because you do not understand
copyright, because you have not done the research.

> Why should a work that *will never again* be manufactured or sold need
> copyright protection?
>
> Why should such a work deserve copyright protection?
>
> If you know the reason, or you have a logical argument, then state it.
>
> If *you* want to perform research to come up with a counter argument,
> then do so. The onus is on you (or MEB) to provide a counter argument.
>

That's not how it works. You are suggesting that a broad set of laws can
either be ignored or should be changed because you don't think they are
appropriate for today's information-based environment. The onus is on you
to show why things are now so different from what they were when the
copyright laws were debated and refined in the legislative chambers and
courts throughout the world that these changes should now be made. When the
process by which the current laws were created is examined (which you seem
determined not to do) you will realize that there is a vast amount of
material addressing each specific point of copyright law, and the debate in
respect of when and how copyright should terminate is as extensive as any
other part. When you have determnined exactly which parts of those
arguments are no longer valid, then present them here and shoot them down.

>> 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,
>
> I never said that copyright benefits should take into account the
> potential for gain, revenue or profit.
>

How about "How is Microsoft harmed, financially or otherwise, today, by
those that obtain and use Windows-98 by any means? What exactly is
copyright law protecting, or conveying what benefit to Microsoft, with
regard to the casual circulation and use of Windows 98?"

That sure sounds to me like you are saying that the availability of
copyright protection should take into account the potential of the
rights-holder to profit from the product. And your following comments make
the same claim.

> A more rational copyright law could be structured as:
>
> a) a work that was never made public could / would be protected.
>

Copyright applies to a published creative work. If it isn't made public it
can't be copied and doesn't need copyright protection.

> b) a work that has been made public, and continues to be, could / would
> be protected.
>
> c) A work that was once made public, but has ceased to be so for some
> period of time, would lose some of it's protection.
>

If it's been made public it can't cease to be public. Once it's published
it's published forever.

> By "made public", I mean any form of presentation to the public, be it
> as an exhibition, broadcast, reproduction for sale or lease, etc.
>
> In a way that is similar to the protection given by a patent. A patent
> is a form of intellectual property that is disclosed in return for a
> period of protection to allow the patent holder to profit from the
> patent. It does not require the holder to do anything, and indeed the
> holder may do nothing to seek financial gain from the patent.
>

Why do we need something similar to a patent? Doesn't patent law look after
that situation? Copyright applies to creative works. Patent law applies to
inventions.

> A copyrighted work is also a form of intellectual property. One can
> argue that software should not be copyrighted but instead should be
> patented because sofware performs work or exhibits functionality, while
> most or all conventional forms of copyrighted materials (music, movies,
> books, art, etc) do not perform work or have any inherent functionality
> of any sort.
>

Whether software should be patentable or copyrightable is a completely
different argument that also has a large body of discussion (and which no
doubt you also have not consulted) and is not going to be debated here.

> So instead of enacting a time-limited protection for software that
> starts the moment it is made available to the public, a comprimise would
> be that software would have full copyright protection while it is
> publically available, but would lose some aspects of it's protection
> perhaps several years after it is has been withdrawn from public
> availability.

Once it's public it's public forever. What you really mean by "withdrawn
from public availability" is "no longer a commercial product". You have not
provided any argument to justify a reduction in the rights of the copyright
holder just because a copyrighted item ceases to be a commercial product. If
it is deserving of copyright protection when it first went on sale then it
is deserving of copyright protection for as long as the rights-holder
chooses. That's the determination of the settled body of copyright law and
you have not advanced any argument that suggests it ought to be otherwise.
 
G

Gary S. Terhune

You're talking to the MOST ignorant of the regulars in this group (well,
"regular" as in a couple of years, not like the *real* regulars here.) Been
proven over and over and over and over ad nauseum. If I had any thought for
his welfare, I'd take up a collection to pay for a tutor in Logic. It would
have to be a very substantial sum, I should think. Might even turn out to be
a lifetime's vocation, and I already have too many of those.

Hope you're aren't expecting anything resembling a real debate. And I
*really* hope you don't have some fantasy about teaching him anything,
whether factual or procedural. If you did.... Well, let's just say I'd have
to start being concerned for your own sanity.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"James Hahn" <jhahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eNB6cskDJHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Please see my comments in-line.
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BF303F.1043D2CE@Guy.com...
>> James Hahn wrote:
>>
>>> > 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
>>
>> Why don't you provide a counter-argument.
>>
>
> There is no counter-argument to anyone who simply says "I think it ought
> to be different than it is because that seems more sensible to me" which
> is the sum total of the arguments you have put forward. You have not
> addressed any of the points that have been part of the whole process of
> the establishment of copyright protection across a wide range of
> jurisdictions over many years. Provide one reason why you believe the
> original creator of a copyrightable work is not entitled to protect that
> work from copying, and maybe people will attempt to provide the evidence
> to disprove it. Don't just say "because I can't see any reason" - you
> can't see any reason because you haven't done the research. Unless you are
> prepared to say just how you can dismiss all the argument and evidence
> about the value to the community that derives from the ability to protect
> creative works, then there is no argument to counter. But you can't do
> that because you do not understand copyright, because you have not done
> the research.
>
>> Why should a work that *will never again* be manufactured or sold need
>> copyright protection?
>>
>> Why should such a work deserve copyright protection?
>>
>> If you know the reason, or you have a logical argument, then state it.
>>
>> If *you* want to perform research to come up with a counter argument,
>> then do so. The onus is on you (or MEB) to provide a counter argument.
>>
>
> That's not how it works. You are suggesting that a broad set of laws can
> either be ignored or should be changed because you don't think they are
> appropriate for today's information-based environment. The onus is on you
> to show why things are now so different from what they were when the
> copyright laws were debated and refined in the legislative chambers and
> courts throughout the world that these changes should now be made. When
> the process by which the current laws were created is examined (which you
> seem determined not to do) you will realize that there is a vast amount of
> material addressing each specific point of copyright law, and the debate
> in respect of when and how copyright should terminate is as extensive as
> any other part. When you have determnined exactly which parts of those
> arguments are no longer valid, then present them here and shoot them down.
>
>>> 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,
>>
>> I never said that copyright benefits should take into account the
>> potential for gain, revenue or profit.
>>
>
> How about "How is Microsoft harmed, financially or otherwise, today, by
> those that obtain and use Windows-98 by any means? What exactly is
> copyright law protecting, or conveying what benefit to Microsoft, with
> regard to the casual circulation and use of Windows 98?"
>
> That sure sounds to me like you are saying that the availability of
> copyright protection should take into account the potential of the
> rights-holder to profit from the product. And your following comments
> make the same claim.
>
>> A more rational copyright law could be structured as:
>>
>> a) a work that was never made public could / would be protected.
>>
>
> Copyright applies to a published creative work. If it isn't made public it
> can't be copied and doesn't need copyright protection.
>
>> b) a work that has been made public, and continues to be, could / would
>> be protected.
>>
>> c) A work that was once made public, but has ceased to be so for some
>> period of time, would lose some of it's protection.
>>
>
> If it's been made public it can't cease to be public. Once it's published
> it's published forever.
>
>> By "made public", I mean any form of presentation to the public, be it
>> as an exhibition, broadcast, reproduction for sale or lease, etc.
>>
>> In a way that is similar to the protection given by a patent. A patent
>> is a form of intellectual property that is disclosed in return for a
>> period of protection to allow the patent holder to profit from the
>> patent. It does not require the holder to do anything, and indeed the
>> holder may do nothing to seek financial gain from the patent.
>>
>
> Why do we need something similar to a patent? Doesn't patent law look
> after that situation? Copyright applies to creative works. Patent law
> applies to inventions.
>
>> A copyrighted work is also a form of intellectual property. One can
>> argue that software should not be copyrighted but instead should be
>> patented because sofware performs work or exhibits functionality, while
>> most or all conventional forms of copyrighted materials (music, movies,
>> books, art, etc) do not perform work or have any inherent functionality
>> of any sort.
>>
>
> Whether software should be patentable or copyrightable is a completely
> different argument that also has a large body of discussion (and which no
> doubt you also have not consulted) and is not going to be debated here.
>
>> So instead of enacting a time-limited protection for software that
>> starts the moment it is made available to the public, a comprimise would
>> be that software would have full copyright protection while it is
>> publically available, but would lose some aspects of it's protection
>> perhaps several years after it is has been withdrawn from public
>> availability.
>
> Once it's public it's public forever. What you really mean by "withdrawn
> from public availability" is "no longer a commercial product". You have
> not provided any argument to justify a reduction in the rights of the
> copyright holder just because a copyrighted item ceases to be a commercial
> product. If it is deserving of copyright protection when it first went on
> sale then it is deserving of copyright protection for as long as the
> rights-holder chooses. That's the determination of the settled body of
> copyright law and you have not advanced any argument that suggests it
> ought to be otherwise.
 
M

MEB

We did this before, read your BS from the last time:

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/fedstat/copyright.htm

There is no argument you can raise that would allow the activity in which
you engage and solicit others to do.

--
MEB
a Peoples' counsel
--
_________



"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BF3A09.E1E6D02@Guy.com...
| MEB wrote:
|
| > The determinative action is the right to *distribute* or not,,,
| > Microsoft holds that right, you and others hold no such authority...
|
| So those that are selling Windows on E-bay are violating copyright law -
| are they not?
|
| Aren't they "distributing" it - by way of sale?
|
| > The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft
| > has purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have
| > that right...
|
| What is really the issue is the USE of Windows 98 in a way that violates
| the EULA.
|
| I might burn a copy of Windows-98 on a stack of CD's and put them in a
| closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of revenue for
| Microsoft?
|
| Does that violate the EULA? How would I know what the EULA is unless I
| stick one of those CD's into a computer and boot it? What if I never
| do?
|
| I might hand out each CD to a friend, and they all might throw it away
| or put it in their closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of
| revenue for Microsoft?
|
| The real issue is not really that CD's are copied or torrents are
| transfering copies of the CD between people.
|
| What matters is this:
|
| Are there any installations of Windows-98 where the license to use the
| software can't be traced back to a lawful sale of said licence by
| Microsoft?
|
| For example - if Microsoft sold a total of 100 million Windows-98
| licenses world-wide, but if at any given point in time there were 100
| million and 1 functioning installations of Windows-98, then it could be
| said that Microsoft has been harmed and has suffered some financial loss
| due to the 1 install that has no corresponding legal license.
|
| There may now (in 2008) be 10 million functioning installations of
| Windows 98, which means there are 90 million licenses that have become
| lost, abandoned or discarded. Microsoft can't claim harm, even today,
| unless the number of systems running Windows-98 rises to above 100
| million, or the number of copies of windows-98 being made available for
| sale (on e-bay, etc) exceeds 90 million.
|
| > 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...
|
| Microsoft has already sold the rights (or licences) for millions of
| individual installations of Windows-98.
|
| It's like there are millions of that "classic car". Some have owners
| who are driving them. Most are sitting around, abandond, on the street,
| in the wilderness, in the garbage dump - and you can just go and take
| them. Once a car company has sold a car to the first purchaser (which
| is usually the dealer) they have no interest in the car after that -
| like the ownership history, who buys it from who, who steals it from
| whom, etc.
|
| > Since NO ONE other than Microsoft has ever actually OWNED the
| > software, you have absolutely no authority.
|
| But someone DID purchase a license to USE the software, and that license
| is NOT time-limited and there is NO prohibition against transfer.
|
| The replication or distribution of a win-98 CD is irrelevant - I might
| use it as a coaster or frisbee.
|
| It's the installation and use of win-98 with or without a bona fide
| license (product key) - that IS the issue.
|
| Because in the end, as you say, Microsoft is selling the RIGHT to USE
| the the software. And once they sell _a_ right, that right continues to
| exist regardless who possesses it or how they came to possess it.
 
D

Dan

MEB, how come Microsoft does not sell the 9x source code to the U.S. or
Canadian or another friendly government if Microsoft is not willing to
program for the 9x source code anymore because it is too expensive for
Microsoft to program for 2 source codes from what I have read about the
situation. (Note: I feel and I think many here would agree with me that
Windows 9x consumer source code was best in Windows 98 Second Edition because
Windows ME removed easy access to MS-DOS and broke easy compatibility with
older programs --- heck --- Microsoft has a white page document that weighs
in over 100 pages on securing Windows 98 and Windows NT networks so it
certainly sounds like Microsoft cares a lot about their older IP that is
still in use by a few companies, some individuals and within some governments)

"MEB" wrote:

> We did this before, read your BS from the last time:
>
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/fedstat/copyright.htm
>
> There is no argument you can raise that would allow the activity in which
> you engage and solicit others to do.
>
> --
> MEB
> a Peoples' counsel
> --
> _________
>
>
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BF3A09.E1E6D02@Guy.com...
> | MEB wrote:
> |
> | > The determinative action is the right to *distribute* or not,,,
> | > Microsoft holds that right, you and others hold no such authority...
> |
> | So those that are selling Windows on E-bay are violating copyright law -
> | are they not?
> |
> | Aren't they "distributing" it - by way of sale?
> |
> | > The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft
> | > has purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have
> | > that right...
> |
> | What is really the issue is the USE of Windows 98 in a way that violates
> | the EULA.
> |
> | I might burn a copy of Windows-98 on a stack of CD's and put them in a
> | closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of revenue for
> | Microsoft?
> |
> | Does that violate the EULA? How would I know what the EULA is unless I
> | stick one of those CD's into a computer and boot it? What if I never
> | do?
> |
> | I might hand out each CD to a friend, and they all might throw it away
> | or put it in their closet. Does that cause harm or result in a loss of
> | revenue for Microsoft?
> |
> | The real issue is not really that CD's are copied or torrents are
> | transfering copies of the CD between people.
> |
> | What matters is this:
> |
> | Are there any installations of Windows-98 where the license to use the
> | software can't be traced back to a lawful sale of said licence by
> | Microsoft?
> |
> | For example - if Microsoft sold a total of 100 million Windows-98
> | licenses world-wide, but if at any given point in time there were 100
> | million and 1 functioning installations of Windows-98, then it could be
> | said that Microsoft has been harmed and has suffered some financial loss
> | due to the 1 install that has no corresponding legal license.
> |
> | There may now (in 2008) be 10 million functioning installations of
> | Windows 98, which means there are 90 million licenses that have become
> | lost, abandoned or discarded. Microsoft can't claim harm, even today,
> | unless the number of systems running Windows-98 rises to above 100
> | million, or the number of copies of windows-98 being made available for
> | sale (on e-bay, etc) exceeds 90 million.
> |
> | > 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...
> |
> | Microsoft has already sold the rights (or licences) for millions of
> | individual installations of Windows-98.
> |
> | It's like there are millions of that "classic car". Some have owners
> | who are driving them. Most are sitting around, abandond, on the street,
> | in the wilderness, in the garbage dump - and you can just go and take
> | them. Once a car company has sold a car to the first purchaser (which
> | is usually the dealer) they have no interest in the car after that -
> | like the ownership history, who buys it from who, who steals it from
> | whom, etc.
> |
> | > Since NO ONE other than Microsoft has ever actually OWNED the
> | > software, you have absolutely no authority.
> |
> | But someone DID purchase a license to USE the software, and that license
> | is NOT time-limited and there is NO prohibition against transfer.
> |
> | The replication or distribution of a win-98 CD is irrelevant - I might
> | use it as a coaster or frisbee.
> |
> | It's the installation and use of win-98 with or without a bona fide
> | license (product key) - that IS the issue.
> |
> | Because in the end, as you say, Microsoft is selling the RIGHT to USE
> | the the software. And once they sell _a_ right, that right continues to
> | exist regardless who possesses it or how they came to possess it.
>
>
>
 
M

MEB

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E27A260-58C7-41CE-8C03-4C7A7F911E27@microsoft.com...
| MEB, how come Microsoft does not sell the 9x source code to the U.S. or
| Canadian or another friendly government if Microsoft is not willing to
| program for the 9x source code anymore because it is too expensive for
| Microsoft to program for 2 source codes from what I have read about the
| situation. (Note: I feel and I think many here would agree with me that
| Windows 9x consumer source code was best in Windows 98 Second Edition
because
| Windows ME removed easy access to MS-DOS and broke easy compatibility with
| older programs --- heck --- Microsoft has a white page document that
weighs
| in over 100 pages on securing Windows 98 and Windows NT networks so it
| certainly sounds like Microsoft cares a lot about their older IP that is
| still in use by a few companies, some individuals and within some
governments)

Microsoft has or had many white papers and other related to the networking
aspects < I still have many hundreds locally, and is aware of the existance
of the millions of users. And in reality, its not all that expensive to
maintain it.. it just no longer brings in the revenue desired.

As for why Microsoft retains its authority you would have to take that up
with Microsoft.

--
MEB

--
_________
 
S

Sunny

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9TRMLlDJHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> We did this before, read your BS from the last time:
>
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/fedstat/copyright.htm
>
> There is no argument you can raise that would allow the activity in
> which
> you engage and solicit others to do.
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BF3A09.E1E6D02@Guy.com...
<snip>

The ironic part about the whole thing is that Western piracy is peanuts,
compared to Asian practises.

On frequent trips, to Singapore/Malaysia/Indonesia I have noticed
thousands of OEM Win98-ME and XP CDs being openly sold off the shelf, in
shops. (Some shop keepers didn't know "retail" copies even existed)
Also, at a Microsoft promotion in Singapore, even the stall holders were
openly admitting pirating Microsoft stuff.
The largest thefts are from corporate/business systems.
 
J

James Hahn

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:OqOxVKlDJHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> You're talking to the MOST ignorant of the regulars in this group (well,
> "regular" as in a couple of years, not like the *real* regulars here.)
> Been proven over and over and over and over ad nauseum. If I had any
> thought for his welfare, I'd take up a collection to pay for a tutor in
> Logic. It would have to be a very substantial sum, I should think. Might
> even turn out to be a lifetime's vocation, and I already have too many of
> those.
>
> Hope you're aren't expecting anything resembling a real debate. And I
> *really* hope you don't have some fantasy about teaching him anything,
> whether factual or procedural. If you did.... Well, let's just say I'd
> have to start being concerned for your own sanity.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://grystmill.com
>

Well, I did jump in by noting that it was the silliest argument I had seen
in a long time. I think I may have made the same mistake in this NG before,
but as a publisher of creative works it is a topic that I feel some concern
about.
 
B

~BD~

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BF3086.54A0782C@Guy.com...
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> >> 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! )
>
> Well, then, in that case - wouldn't "sailing into danger" be better?
>
__________________________________________________

Consider this, wise Guy:-

The industrial revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the upsurge in
international commerce which followed resulted in the adoption of a number of international treaties
related to shipping, including safety. The subjects covered included tonnage measurement, the
prevention of collisions, signalling and others.

By the end of the nineteenth century suggestions had even been made for the creation of a permanent
international maritime body to deal with these and future measures. The plan was not put into
effect, but international co-operation continued in the twentieth century, with the adoption of
still more internationally-developed treaties.

By the time IMO came into existence in 1958, several important international conventions had already
been developed, including the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954 and treaties
dealing with load lines and the prevention of collisions at sea.

IMO was made responsible for ensuring that the majority of these conventions were kept up to date.
It was also given the task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.

The creation of IMO coincided with a period of tremendous change in world shipping and the
Organization was kept busy from the start developing new conventions and ensuring that existing
instruments kept pace with changes in shipping technology. It is now responsible for nearly 50
international conventions and agreements and has adopted numerous protocols and amendments.


Extract from 'Conventions' here:- http://www.imo.org/

HTH

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Any fixes on my CPU being used 98%-100% almost all the time?
Replies
0
Views
31
Wingleyy
W
M
i cant play minecraft windows edition
Replies
0
Views
25
Max Lynch
M
M
i cant play minecraft windows edition
Replies
0
Views
29
Max Lynch
M
P
Where can I legally get a copy of Windows 95?
Replies
0
Views
11
Philabuster_045
P
L
Internet being accessed in CMD- command prompt
Replies
0
Views
26
Legend_PG
L
Back
Top Bottom