Guest Buffalo Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition Don Phillipson wrote: > (a) " no longer in print or being stamped or sold, then > making copies of it and passing it around is not piracy." > (b) "I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my > own personal use, or perhaps for others so long as there is no direct > financial gain for me." [snip] It's a point of black and white for you and many others, but I really believe that anyone can copy and give freely (without charge) a copy of Win98SE to anyone they want to (not including the product key). Your points are legal only, not common sense. Total BS!
Guest Buffalo Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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?? An expert of some kind?
Guest glee Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message news:svednaYG0o-3QSDVnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > Don Phillipson wrote: >> (a) " no longer in print or being stamped or sold, then >> making copies of it and passing it around is not piracy." >> (b) "I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my >> own personal use, or perhaps for others so long as there is no direct >> financial gain for me." > [snip] > > It's a point of black and white for you and many others, but I really > believe that anyone can copy and give freely (without charge) a copy of > Win98SE to anyone they want to (not including the product key). > Your points are legal only, not common sense. > Total BS! Not total BS, in that the sore point here is that not only is an image of the disc being downloaded, but it includes multiple product keys with it. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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.
Guest Buffalo Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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.
Guest Dan Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition You are most welcome. I am glad we are on the same thought process here, Angel. "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 > > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:0999B314-BE50-4E90-9D7B-4E30F8F16B6E@microsoft.com... > : 98 Guy, please leave Angel alone. Microsoft was is indeed a copy and for > : economic reasons Microsoft decided to abandon the 9x source code. To this > : day, I still firmly think this was a huge mistake because now hackers can > : concentrate on one line of business source code and it has made consumers > : activities lots more dangerous because there is not the distinction > between > : consumer and cooperate customer anymore. Hopefully, Microsoft will > : eventually develop a new source code that is really good and has the best > : elements of the 9x source code, the NT source code and perhaps using open > : source unix/linunx technologies to make a really good product but until > that > : day we all do what we can and I cannot promote piracy even if the product > has > : been abandoned and you are just willing to check 1/3 of the product -- > what > : happens if the baddie is buried deep within the other 2/3rds in a hidden > : directory? > : > : "98 Guy" wrote: > : > : > Angel wrote: > : > > : > > When I see a post like this, asking for a copy of a product that > : > > is copyrighted, I wonder what goes through the mind of that > : > > individual and the one the is trying to help him get a "free" copy. > : > > : > Maybe you should ask yourself why the manufacturer of the product no > : > longer sells the product. > : > > : > Then ask youself what harm is coming to the manufacturer because of the > : > obtainment of the "free" product. > : > > : > > I believe that those individuals have never heard of, or practiced > : > > integrity and/or morals. > : > > : > What high horse did you fall off of? > : > > : > Why can't you get it through your thick skull that Microsoft suffered no > : > harm, because it no longer sells Windows 98. > : > > : > > Maybe they just don't care who they cheat. > : > > : > Please explain how Microsoft was "cheated" in this event. > : > > : > > He may get a copy, but he may get an infected copy. > : > > : > After checking 1/3 of the contents, I'm satisfied that it was a clean > : > copy. > : > > > >
Guest Dan Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition LOL, good one, Bill in Co. "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. > > >
Guest Dan Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 98 Guy may know a lot more about computers but respect plays a great part in this newsgroup, imo. "Buffalo" wrote: > > > 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. > > >
Guest 98 Guy Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition MEB wrote: > This is the same garbage you attempted to extend the last time.. 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. If you don't know the answer to those questions, or if you don't have an opinion yourself, then don't bother to respond.
Guest 98 Guy Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition Don Phillipson wrote: > > I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my own > > personal use, > You seem to be wrong about this point of law as well, There are exemptions for research or to ascertain the performance or practicality of a patent. Personal use would or could be part of those exemptions. > Readers see your posts on two topics: > 1. What current law says > 2. The reasons or purposes underlying current law. > > We cannot expect good discussion of #2 if first we get #1 wrong, It's my opinion that a work that is no longer and will never again be manufactured or sold should not enjoy copyright protection. It's my opinion that "piracy" is a term used to describe the replication or distribution of a work that is providing a revenue stream for the work's rightful owner. If the work is no longer offered for commercial sale, then it has no value to the owner and hence can't be pirated. In this case, replication does not equal piracy.
Guest James Hahn Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition This is the silliest argument I have seen in a long time. "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? > > 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 that has been suggested and look through the development of copyright law in some example jurisdictions around the world. 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, come and show it to us as an example of how you believe copyright law should be written. You have confused the reasons for copyright protection with the patent laws, which do have some connections to commercial realities for a patentable item. The two forms of protection exist for entirely different reasons. Do you surf the www? Have you noticed that a lot of the material on the www is subject to copyright? How much of that material is generating revenue for the rights-holder? I would guess that only a tiny fraction of copyrighted www sites actually make money. So how do you think those rights-holders would react if told that their attempt to prevent others from using their creative works depends on whether or not they can make a dollar out of them? Not only do I believe I can predict their reaction, but I would be confident their complaints would mirror very closely the arguments on which the current copyright law has been developed over the years. Secondly, you have chosen to discusss the issue in terms of copyright because you have a particular viewpoint on that topic that happens to suit your purpose. It suits you to pretend that you are only breaking a law that you believe is not supportable. In fact, the law being broken here, which was also pointed out very early on, is incitement to theft. The supplier does not own the product, and making copies, or allowing copies to be made, is theft. Yes, it's intellectual property rather than a physical item, but most jurisdictions around the world no longer make any distincion between IP and real goods. Try arguing your point of view in terms of the law that's being broken here, not in terms of some theoretical concept of what the copyright law ought to be in order to justify your actions.
Guest ~BD~ Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BC70AE.4194BBDC@Guy.com... > ~BD~ wrote: > >> > May Jesus protect me from those that believe in Him. >> >> He won't - of that you may be certain! > > Oh don't worry. I'm quite certain of the limitations of a fictional > character. > >> 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! ;) BD --
Guest MEB Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition To add to the above: The determinative action is the right to *distribute* or not,,, Microsoft holds that right, you and others hold no such authority... As indicated, it is a theft of not only intellectual property, patented code [some of it anyway], and other, but the more importantly, the distribution right. The Law has already stated WHEN you would have right to distribute; upon expiration; doing so before such expiration IS a criminal act. The whole ridiculous argument you raise is that because Microsoft has purportedly chosen NOT to distribute 98 then you SHOULD have that right... 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... go ahead try any of what you suggest, but make sure you put your name, address, and phone number on it so you can get the credit...98 was a commercial item previously For Sale, which the seller has now determined is no longer offered. Since NO ONE other than Microsoft has ever actually OWNED the software, you have absolutely no authority. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ "James Hahn" <jhahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%23hKNbqYDJHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | This is the silliest argument I have seen in a long time. | | "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? | > | > 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 that has been suggested and look | through the development of copyright law in some example jurisdictions | around the world. 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, come and show it to us as an | example of how you believe copyright law should be written. | | You have confused the reasons for copyright protection with the patent laws, | which do have some connections to commercial realities for a patentable | item. The two forms of protection exist for entirely different reasons. | | Do you surf the www? Have you noticed that a lot of the material on the www | is subject to copyright? How much of that material is generating revenue | for the rights-holder? I would guess that only a tiny fraction of | copyrighted www sites actually make money. So how do you think those | rights-holders would react if told that their attempt to prevent others from | using their creative works depends on whether or not they can make a dollar | out of them? Not only do I believe I can predict their reaction, but I | would be confident their complaints would mirror very closely the arguments | on which the current copyright law has been developed over the years. | | Secondly, you have chosen to discusss the issue in terms of copyright | because you have a particular viewpoint on that topic that happens to suit | your purpose. It suits you to pretend that you are only breaking a law that | you believe is not supportable. In fact, the law being broken here, which | was also pointed out very early on, is incitement to theft. The supplier | does not own the product, and making copies, or allowing copies to be made, | is theft. Yes, it's intellectual property rather than a physical item, but | most jurisdictions around the world no longer make any distincion between IP | and real goods. | | Try arguing your point of view in terms of the law that's being broken | here, not in terms of some theoretical concept of what the copyright law | ought to be in order to justify your actions. |
Guest glee Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition Inline.... "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48BE1079.34466439@Guy.com... > Don Phillipson wrote: > >> > I am free to replicate the ideas contained in a patent for my own >> > personal use, > >> You seem to be wrong about this point of law as well, > > There are exemptions for research or to ascertain the performance or > practicality of a patent. Personal use would or could be part of those > exemptions. You can make up anything you like, but "personal use" does not fit those descriptions. >> Readers see your posts on two topics: >> 1. What current law says >> 2. The reasons or purposes underlying current law. >> >> We cannot expect good discussion of #2 if first we get #1 wrong, > > It's my opinion that a work that is no longer and will never again be > manufactured or sold should not enjoy copyright protection. > > It's my opinion that "piracy" is a term used to describe the replication > or distribution of a work that is providing a revenue stream for the > work's rightful owner. If the work is no longer offered for commercial > sale, then it has no value to the owner and hence can't be pirated. In > this case, replication does not equal piracy. You don't get it, obviously. It has nothing to do with revenue stream as far as the law goes. It is protection of intellectual property, regardless of whether there is any revenue involved, or whether the OS is sold or still updated/supported in terms of receiving new code from the maker. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest pebble Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition Well I reckon all's fair in love, war and internet use. B-) pebble in Boulder
Guest Buffalo Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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
Guest ~BD~ Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition "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 --
Guest Angel Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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 : :
Guest Don Phillipson Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition "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)
Guest Angel Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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. : :
Guest Angel Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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 : : -- : :
Guest MEB Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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 -- _________
Guest ~BD~ Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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 --
Guest Bill in Co. Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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.
Guest 98 Guy Posted September 4, 2008 Posted September 4, 2008 Re: Copy of Windows 98 Second Edition 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.
Recommended Posts