>>I have absolutely no doubt that MS' Authorization will be "cracked" in no time and only legitimate Users will get got up in the net, for whatever reason.
>
>FWIW, people have been using reasoning like this forever. (ie., people driving without insurance, people lying about their address for whatever purpose, etc...) The only way that I can see to live is to just live my life as honestly as possible and let others do what they want. Any other reasoning just leads to bitterness and hate - living the opposite of the Golden Rule sort of...

Well, I'm not feeling "hateful" or "bitter"; I consider it a nuisance. If you prefer to let every nuisance slide, that's your business I guess.

>I've been buying S/W for quite a while and haven't run into the 'Auth. Key' in a long time. What S/W still uses it?

My last experience was Intuit. It prevented me from doing my taxes for 3 days, until someone was ready to answer the phone. In the end, it swallowed 2 years of returns because I moved the app and the original (harware-dependent) key wouldn't work.

>I sincerely doubt that MS will come after you to make an example.

Because they're not Symantec or Oracle ? (see below).

>There's two issues that you're addressing: 1. price increase 2. Treatment
>1. Price Increase? see my earlier post about the ever sharper pressure from Boards to increase profits.
>2. Treatment. That's largely something you interpret from circumstances. Like Harry Nilsson's The Point: "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear." You feel treated like a crook and I feel I'm Ok but they're attorneys pursuing a goal where 'heart' has no place.

You're probably right; "Bill" probably doesn't know what his people doing, and the rest are probably just "following orders".

>>I think they could make a bigger dent in sofware piracy with "Fink Fees". It works for the IRS.
>
>They already do - sort of. They and other S/W companies (Symantec and Oracle for example) are part of a Consortium that have legal offices, have sent out letters (I received two as a matter of fact.) demanding a self-audit, use of a third party auditing S/W package called 'GASP', etc... They state in the letter that I'd be better off safe than sorry - *after* an ex-employee, for example, reports me for using illegal software. (I have no 'ex-employees' being a one-man shop.) I can't blame them for pushing for licensing.
>I checked the consortium out, talked with them, asked them about their legal rights, probable cause, search and seizure, etc. When I was satisifed that they were not bogus and were exercising their legal right I filled out their questionaire truthfully (1 MSDN Universal Subscription, 2 desktops and a laptop) and returned it. Haven't heard from them since and that was early spring.

I would have countered by asking about their sexual habits and drug use. In some states, it's still illegal to .