Re: stolen operating system

From: MarlaJo (
Date: 09/08/04

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:19:04 -0700

In the response to the last post, the enquiry regarding MS & pirating
software / multiple installs and uses of a single license was acknowledged
but was left unanswered. Can you please explain how MS can detect multiple
installs/uses of a single-use application license agreement and, if not, what
is to stop anyone from so doing?

P.S. My earlier commens about the irony of collecting header information
were not vague and I'm fairly certain you know what was intended and where I
am headed with this thought. I can't wait to learn how MS detects for
mutiple uses of its software, ya know what I mean?
"Paul Adare - MVP - Microsoft Virtual PC" wrote:

> In article <>, in the
> news group, =?Utf-8?B?TWFybGFKbw==?=
> <> says...
> > So MS has included its machine header address in the posting since there are
> > all those people posting here not using the web UI and this is interesting
> > because... Because why?
> I haven't a clue what the above sentence is supposed to mean. The reason
> that the IP of the Microsoft server show in the header when posting with
> the web UI is because that is how the NNTP RFC works. The NNTP-Posting
> host header is defined as the IP of the address of the machine from
> which your are posting. When using the web UI, you are posting from a
> Microsoft sever, hence that is the IP address that gets recorded.
> > If I don't use the web UI what would I use? DOS?
> Again, haven't a clue what you mean by this. If you choose not to use
> the web UI, as I so chose, there are any number of news clients out
> there for Windows, Linux, and the Mac OS. Not really sure what DOS has
> to do with anything here.
> > There are lots of people living in DOS land, last time I checked.
> So, what's your point. There are also news readers for DOS out there. I
> really don't have a clue what point you're attempting to make here.
> > I don't mean to sound flippant, I am here as I respect what I'll learn here
> > & who teaches me, but I want to stay on target:
> We are on target. You made an incorrect statement, and I corrected you,
> that's on target.
> > MS can and has used its code base to gather the type of user data we're
> > talking about;
> Prove this statement.
> > therefore MS can help, but chooses not too because.... Because
> > why? Scared of public outcry concerning privacy rights?
> Microsoft does not "choose" not to help. They don't collect any data
> that could help you here, nor are they in the business of tracking down
> stolen computers. Have you any idea how many computers are stolen on a
> daily basis? You're suggesting that Microsoft has some sort of legal
> duty to expend resources in tracking all of these thefts? Incredible.
> You might want to go talk to a lawyer and have them set you straight.
> > Since when is it a
> > privacy rights violation to aid in the capture of a thief? Indeed, since when
> > is it lawful to aid and abed criminals which is what MS is doing by not
> > helping victims of crime when they have knowledge of a thief's whereabouts.
> Wow, incredible comment here. Microsoft is guilty of aiding and abetting
> criminals because they don't track IPP? I guess you're a lawyer. Tell
> you what, go file a complaint with the police and see if they agree to
> lay charges against Microsoft.
> > And on the more general side of the topic, since when is the world wide web
> > private?
> What? No one ever stated it was.
> > If I go online I know that I'm out in the public's eye therefore I
> > am understanding of the fact that what I do online is not private. And
> > getting back to the another topic mentioned previously, how does MS enforce
> > its ownership of its software and fight piracy? Or am I to believe that it
> > is not possible to suffer any serious consequnces for pirating?
> You don't understand how this works.
> --
> Paul Adare
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.