>>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 .
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only