Your Build 9860 Evaluation

Slartybart said:

usasma said:

If a nitwit is only ½ of the problem, does that make them a halfwit?

The other nitwit is the other 1/2 of the problem - you see?

Nearly 100% of all problems are caused by a couple of nitwits.

I guess there's a certain synergy there. A couple of half wits can cause more damage than the most dedicated moron.

"Morons think they'll get smarter by taking lessons."
- MilesAhead

Mystere said:

Layback Bear said:

Abusing copyrights or patents is still stealing.
The difference is what laws, regulation and or methods one can be prosecuted under for doing such a act.

Copyright infringement is illegal, it is not stealing. Copyright is the right to control who uses your intellectual property and in what way. Just like you have the right to control who uses your property and in what way. Trespassing is identical to Copyright infringement in all ways, other than the fact that the owner of the property has no way to physically protect it.

Theft is when you deprive someone of property. If I take your money, you can no longer use that money. I have stolen it from you. If I copy your money (if such technology were available) then I am not depriving you of that money, thus I am not stealing it. I am counterfeiting it, but that's a different law, and also illegal.

Infringement is when you deprive someone of a right. When you trespass, you infringe upon the right to protect your property.

Again, these are very specific terms and have very specific legal meanings. I'm not attempting to say copyright infringement is not bad or not illegal, i'm just saying it's not theft or stealing. Use the right terms.

By the way, this is not just my opinion. At least one court has upheld it (though not in the US) and an esteemed professor of law at Rutgers has said it as well..

Illegal downloading 'more like trespass than theft' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

When some one infringes on a copyright they are depriving the owner of the copyright.
They are taking the money the owner of the copyright should have received.
I don't care how it's considered in a court. I will use the term steel as I see fit.
When you take something that belongs to me without my permission (paying for it) or a court order you are steeling from me.
I quite sure one can find a liberal judge that would consider copyright infringement a act of borrowing with the intent of paying for it later.

Yes your honor I was going to give Windows 7 back as soon as it got old where Microsoft no longer gives updates.
Honest your honor I was just borrowing it to see if I really wanted it.
I standing here in front of you accused before my evaluation period was completed. Just poor timing on my part is my guess.

In my world when you deprive someone of the money they should of received while you were using the program your steeling from them. Is it the proper legal term, well I will take your word that it isn't; but I don't care.

Layback Bear said: When some one infringes on a copyright they are depriving the owner of the copyright. No they aren't (unless they steal the copyright documents and destroy all of the other existing copies). Layback Bear said: They are taking the money the owner of the copyright should have received. That is only true if the individual would have purchased the product, because they weren't able to copy it. The amount of money that the Corporations claim they were deprived of, bears no relationship to reality. Meanwhile they've been stealing other people's IP as fast as possible. Boing Boing Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe $60 billion in damages - Boing Boing

Business Pundit A Refreshing Look at RIAA vs. Pirate Bay

Layback Bear said:

I quite sure one can find a liberal judge that would consider copyright infringement a act of borrowing with the intent of paying for it later.

In South Australia, people used to get charged with "Car Theft".
A while back I noticed that they now get charged with "Illegal Use".

Presumably someone won a case by claiming they had no intention of permanently depriving the owner of their vehicle.

Originally Posted by Layback Bear
When some one infringes on a copyright they are depriving the owner of the copyright.
No they aren't (unless they steal the copyright documents and destroy all of the other existing copies).

Leaving this out of my post does make a difference.

They are taking the money the owner of the copyright should have received.

^^ Yes.. I would vote for that.

Slartybart said:

My Build 9860 Evaluation is done. The VM has been updated to Build 9879.

Waiting for the 'std' ISO to do a clean install to a new VM.

I know the Enterprise ISO is available on the TechNet evaluation page, but I started with the 'std' Win10 and don't want to change editions in the middle of testing.

Need a new thread for 9879?

Bill
.

Speaking of Enterprise.. my impression when they say you cannot keep files or changes is that it's a "live" boot ISO with no installer or some means to prevent a normal install?


Edit: +1 on the new thread. :)

Edwin said:

MilesAhead said:

Slartybart said:

My Build 9860 Evaluation is done. The VM has been updated to Build 9879.

Waiting for the 'std' ISO to do a clean install to a new VM.

I know the Enterprise ISO is available on the TechNet evaluation page, but I started with the 'std' Win10 and don't want to change editions in the middle of testing.

Need a new thread for 9879?

Bill
.

Speaking of Enterprise.. my impression when they say you cannot keep files or changes is that it's a "live" boot ISO with no installer or some means to prevent a normal install?


Edit: +1 on the new thread. :)

Installed normally for me.

I don't get how they can stop you from saving changes then. Unless it's an empty threat.