FS2004 CRACK

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:08:58 +0000 (UTC), "Quilljar"
wrote:

Well I bought it and it would not install/run without the crack, and I read
that this is true for a few others. It's a bit late to be too moralistic now
as cracks for ALL pc and Mac games have been available on the web for years
now.

Jeroen Wenting wrote:
if you bought it you need no crack...
The license expressly forbids using them.

The license forbids a lot of things to which "fair use" says you can
have.

AS has been shown on here there are situations where the system will
not run using the DVD drive for disk 4.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)



"Jerry Morgan" wrote in message
...
Hallo!
I've just bought FS2004 and I'm wondering if someone has a crack, so
I don't have to use my CDs to fly the FS...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 12/08/2003

"Jerry Morgan" wrote in message
...
Hallo!
I've just bought FS2004 and I'm wondering if someone has a crack, so I
don't
have to use my CDs to fly the FS...


You'll find the no cd fix on this page:
http://www.scenery.org/faq.htm

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:08:52 GMT, "Marty Ross"
wrote:

But do you feel that makes it OK to "Accept" the terms of
an agreement -- e.g., just because you can't be punished for breaking the
agreement?

The "agreement" is a very long list of legal boiler plate. Some of it
cannot be enforced either practically or legally. Even the agreement
acknowledges this with the statement if one clause is cannot be
enforced the rest of the clauses will still be in effect. Bottom line
for me is that it is meaningless verbiage with I "agree" to by using
the software. I then completely ignore it. As I stated in a previous
post, I paid for it, it is now mine, and I will use it as I see fit.

"Marty Ross" wrote in message
news
Regarding the "implicit agreement about the usability of the software", I
seem to remember a clause that states something like: "user accepts all
risks as to fitness of use..." and: "producer grants no guarantee as
to
merchantibility or fitness of use", etc.

Like I said, much of the EULA is unenforceable. The product must be
expected to be usable at some basic level, otherwise the sale of the
software is fraud. The publisher can write "as is" in the EULA all they
want, they still have a legal obligation to expect each and every purchaser
to be able to use the software.

Regarding how well their agreement holds up in court, I don't know; you're
probably right. But do you feel that makes it OK to "Accept" the terms of
an agreement -- e.g., just because you can't be punished for breaking the
agreement?

Of course I do. The reason I can't be punished is because the agreement
isn't legal. Why should I concern myself with someone else's attempt to
illegally restrict my rights?

Pete

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:08:52 GMT, "Marty Ross"
wrote:

Regarding the "implicit agreement about the usability of the software", I
seem to remember a clause that states something like: "user accepts all
risks as to fitness of use..." and: "producer grants no guarantee as to
merchantibility or fitness of use", etc. Basically, I understand this to
mean that you're on your own -- the producer (Microsoft) makes NO guarantee
that you can use the thing for ANY purpose. If they're nice, I guess
they'll refund your money if it doesn't work for you. BUT THEY DON'T OWE
YOU ANYTHING IF IT DOESN'T.


And I seriously doubt they are going to go after any one who uses a
crack to run the software. Nor do I see anything wrong with using a
crack so the user doesn't have to bother with inserting the CD
regardless of what the EUL says.

I do disagree with using the crack to allow someone to share. That is
different and a violation of copyright law. The first does not
violate copyright, and it is something that has been provided for in
"fair use" even though the DMCA says otherwise.

it's time someone with enough clout turned the DMCA into something
that treats users and supplies in an equally fair manner.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Dry up Marty,
Your BS is why everybody hates lawyers.
WS

"Peter Duniho" wrote
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message

And fair use says you may make a backup copy of your software, yet MS
sets up FS to prevent this. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I
have no sympathy for MS in this case either.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but IMHO using a "no CD crack" for the
furtherance of legitimate use (i.e. archival copy) isn't a wrong at
all. Just because something's illegal, that doesn't necessarily make
it wrong (and vice a versa).

Especially if you live in a country where it isn't illegal.

By the way, Microsoft was one of the last companies on the
copy-protection bandwagon, other than a brief flirtation with it in
the 80's.

Pirates helped Microsoft gain a strangle hold on the desktop PC,
entrenching Windows. At first, distribution was crucial. Now, in order to
maintain network effects, Microsoft is beginning to offer its Windows and
Office software combination for $40 in Malaysia and to drop the price in
other countries. The fact folks in China get it for free is not a bad thing
while we in "civilized" nations are paying the PC user dues which make
Microsoft billions per year in profits and add to Microsoft's current
$50,000,000,000 USD surplus of cash. Microsoft must maintain network
effects, if necessary by further dropping its prices for Windows/Office in
countries which are threatening to use Linux.

It's been standard practice in the games market, by ALL
companies, for over a decade.

Could be. But when I have a choice, a software publisher can do as it
pleases.

Not sure if you're singling out Microsoft or not,

Most software makers have to compete for a living. Microsoft has 80% profit
margins on its monopoly software. Microsoft has a $50,000,000,000
(that's 50 billion) USD surplus of cash. Microsoft doesn't have an excuse
for making crapware or restricting the use of its game software in
civilised countries.

When it comes to Windows/Office, we in the United States must accept the
restrictions and pay.

From the federal district court of the United States.

"Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible
PC operating systems."

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

"... we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."







but if you are, they don't deserve it. All of the
software publishers are equally guilty of putting their own interests
ahead of their *legitimate* users.

The perversion of the DMCA is one aspect as to removing users rights.

Exactly. One of the most ridiculous provisions of the DMCA is to
prohibit ANY circumvention of copy protection, regardless of intent.
I've yet to read about a serious attempt to contest this in the
courts, but IMHO if such a case does come up and the DMCA isn't found
to be unconstitutional at least in that area, we can pretty much give
up on our country ever being again what the founders intended.

Pete