Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
It is theft plain and simple.  I could care less if everyone on here decided to hate me and never speak to me again.  I own my own intellectual property and would be pissed if I found out it was being given away.  I am sorry so many people on here think just because they want something they can have it without expense.

I am sorry, but it is not theft and it is not without expense.  If I purchase a single user license, install it on my computer, then let somebody else install it on their computer, using the same key, that would be theft.  If, however, I purchase a 3 user license, only end up using two, and give away the third, where is the theft?  They got paid for 3 licenses, why should they care how I divy them up?

Quote:
Every person on here would be pissed if someone came to their home and took any portion of their DVD collection.  This is NO different.

I am sorry but it is completely different as the person taking the DVDs didn't pay for them.  In the example I gave, MS was paid for the product.

Bottom line, it may be a violation of the ELUA, but it is nowhere close to being theft.  JMHO.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
It is theft plain and simple.  I could care less if everyone on here decided to hate me and never speak to me again.  I own my own intellectual property and would be pissed if I found out it was being given away.  I am sorry so many people on here think just because they want something they can have it without expense.

I am sorry, but it is not theft and it is not without expense.  If I purchase a single user license, install it on my computer, then let somebody else install it on their computer, using the same key, that would be theft.  If, however, I purchase a 3 user license, only end up using two, and give away the third, where is the theft?  They got paid for 3 licenses, why should they care how I divy them up?

Quote:
Every person on here would be pissed if someone came to their home and took any portion of their DVD collection.  This is NO different.

I am sorry but it is completely different as the person taking the DVDs didn't pay for them.  In the example I gave, MS was paid for the product.

Bottom line, it may be a violation of the ELUA, but it is nowhere close to being theft.  JMHO.

It is exactly the same thing other than one is an electronic medium and the other is a physical disc.

Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
Quoting Mole:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
There are at least 4 people who were advocating giving away licenses or ignoring EUA's in a less than 3 page thread.

And about twice as many who were not. Therefore I repeat, I look forward to your apology to me and those others.

Mole you were not advocating piracy therefor I wasn't talking to you.  You will not be getting an apology

By your own words you said "everybody" [in this thread]. However I will accept your retraction in my case as an apology, which is accepted. I suggest you do the same for the others who you have maligned and in future pause and reflect before making scattergun accusations.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
It is exactly the same thing other than one is an electronic medium and the other is a physical disc.

If you honestly think giving away an unused license, that was payed for, is exactly the same as stealing something that belongs to someone else, there is no point in discussing this further as, for me, the comparison is beyond absurd and no rational discussion can be had.  Theft is a crime, one you can go to jail for, violating an EULA is not.

Just because you cannot wrap your brain around it is not my problem.  When you buy MS Office with a 3 use license it is NOT a 3 user license.  I do not know what place you purchased your MS Office from, but if it is from any of the normal places (eg Amazon, Target, Walmart) you are NOT buying a three user license.  You are buying a single user license for three appliances.  While the police will not come and pick you up for violation of EULA it is still stealing if you purposely use it improperly (ie giving it or selling it to a third party.)

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
Just because you cannot wrap your brain around it is not my problem.  When you buy MS Office with a 3 use license it is NOT a 3 user license.  I do not know what place your purchased your MS Office from, but if it is from any of the normal places (eg Amazon, Target, Walmart) you are NOT buying a three user license.  You are buying a single user license for three appliances.  While the police will not come and pick you up for violation of EULA it is still stealing if you purposely use it improperly (ie giving it or selling it to a third party.)  As usual when someone disagrees with you, you resort to degradation and name calling.  I am sorry for you very, very sorry.

I neither degraded nor called you any names.  I said that the comparison you made was absurd...which it was in my opinion...and, because of that we couldn't have a rational discussion.  You proved my point by making the above post...which, I might add, started out with a degrading statement.  You can point your finger at me all you want, but it is you who can't handle the fact that I, and a few others, disagree with you on this point.

I notice you posted my post before its retraction and that is fine.  I was not degrading to you.  I said it was not my problem.  Whether you believe it a crime or not you are still violating the EULA agreement.  I AM not going to debate morals with you as our are obviously very divergent.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
...When you purchase a program (being MS Office or DVDProfiler etc) you agree to abide by the end user agreement....

Actually, there is a hitch in that reasoning. It has become before courts in some countries (actually I think it was up to a EU court making it a valid ruling in the whole of the European Union, but I didn't check for this post) how valid these EULA's are. This not only plays for software purchases, but also for DVD's (etc) where some sort of limitation plays ("...home use only...", "...resale to other countries...") before the rest of the disk.

One is only bound by what was visible on the product at the point of buying. In other words, what one was reasonably aware of (or could be) at that point. Restricting a product's use by the manufacturer after the moment of purchase has no validity. Similarly for the right to sell your property. This means any restrictions must be in readable text on the back cover of a DVD package, or if online, in plain text before the sale is made. Since EULA's and similar are formulated in very different ways dependent on whoever wrote them, no purchaser can make assumptions that there even will be one. If the EULA is disclosed AFTER the sale, for instance at the point of software istallation, it is pointless.

Notice for shareware (DVDprofiler !) you read a EULA at the point of installation but that is usually BEFORE you decide to cough up the money, IOW complete the sale.

Please bear in mind that the courts in different countries may have produced different case laws and that not every court (or a country's laws) make a strong case for consumer rights.

Please also note this is valid for actually buying a copy of something, but is not for subscription services. You can't resell subscription services. (There is the reason Microsoft is propagating Office 365 or Adobe for similarly subscription services on Photoshop...).

Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
No, I did not when I bought MS Office 2000. I handed over cash, the salesman handed me the CD.
So I would be free to resell this CD with the rights to use MS Office whenever I want.

This seems to be splitting hairs.
I could go and buy a CD copy of any program and then sell it without a problem.
However, if I installed that program onto my computer - and thereby agreed to the EULA for its use I could no longer sell it without first removing it from my computer.

What people do is up to them, I just don't want to hear about it.
I would bet money that many users of Profiler freely pirate films. While I may think the practice is abhorrent, as long as they don't blatantly talk about it I'll stay quiet.

It's an honour system to me.
For example, my sister wants to use Profiler. I've given her the site address so she can buy it. The fact that she ONLY wants to use it as a means of compiling a list of her purchases/viewings is irrelevant. I've told her that if that's all she wants to do she can use excel.

Obviously, this topic is something that both sides feel very strongly about; so maybe it would be a good idea to halt conversation before things get nasty?

Wow, this has turned into quite a crap storm,  This was not my intension.  Miti what I spoke of earlier is in the US two common ways to buy MS Office is single install single license and 3 install single license.  Many people believe the second way is purchasing three licenses.  This is not true.  They have purchased a single license with the right to install it to three of there appliances that are capable of running MS Office.  I am not sure how anyone on here is using it but to use it within the EULA it would be installed to computers in your household.  If you had a child leaving for or living at school MS would probably still allow you to include them in your three licenses as their computer technically still belongs to your household.  This is what is causing a lot of the argument here.  Many people believe the three installs are three separate licenses and feel they can give the others away at will.  If I remember correctly this is considered subletting your license and is NOT allowed by the EULA.  Technically it IS stealing even if you give it away and receive no financial gain from it.  As there are people who are adamant on both sides of this argument I am go to make this my last post regarding it.  I would like to thank EVERYONE for their participation and their opinions.