The lady doth protest too much, methinks.* You are having an odd reaction to a simple question, which by your own protestation, does not apply to you. Counting yourself in that number, you are finding disagreement where none exists. As it pertains to software, we are in virtually complete agreement. You have declared without substantation or direct reference that I have accused 'everyone' of some guilt or commonality of denomination. I have not. My posts were intended to clarify the misuse of legal concepts. Ostensibly, my failed humor was over your head, without regard to the tallness of your horse, as it were. Aside from my current usage of the 16385 build, I have no ill-gotten applications deployed. Additionally, any argument that build 16385 is illegally deployed is nullified by the MS Software License Terms incorporated within the build - and the time bomb. I am an owner of multiple business and real property assets - I would not expose myself in such a way, even if I were inclined to thievery, which I am not. I do have a Nerf football that I don't where it came from.
I have dozens of software titles that I purchased while an officer in two different corporations that are now dissolved. I paid for them, but they were initially property of the corporation. Transfers of those assets were accomplished by dissolution agreement and are a matter of public record. I use two of those titles - an XP Pro install and an install of Office 2000 - I need the Access 2000 install to support a billing application (front-end) for a British telco. I have never bothered to modify the license agreements with MS because there is no need to do so. The remaining software is boxed up and aging to worthlessness.
I own, outright and wholly, numerous applications developed by persons in my employ. I do not concern myself with whether or not any of them are in use, as such potential usage is rather limited in scope. I do retain my rights to them in the off-chance that they may develop a greater value, at which time I would demand licensing fees or a transfer agreement. You may or may not see this clearly - I take intellectual property rights and copyrights very seriously.
Music CDs and MP3s are a different matter. Not because I Kazaa - I do not. I do, however, have possession of hundreds of albums in MP3 and FLAC format. About 90% of these represent pieces that I have purchased in the past five decades on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, DVD and MP3. At no time, in no manner, was I ever provided any vehicle or method to record assignment of license (not inclusive of some of the MP3s). I can no more prove legal authority to listen to them than the RIAA can prove that I do not. The remaining portion were mostly acquired through acquisition of computer hardware. In the improbable event of prosecution, my attorneys would likely declare an affirmative defense under Fair Use, as I have possession of the recorded media or evidence of it's destruction and the possession of an archive. As a card carrying member of the Republican party, I take great exception to the tactics of a crumbling industry group.
Furthermore, any attempt to impune the value of public service is little worthy of respect and demands retort. One should not assign diminutive station to those who choose to serve. It is not becoming of the good character you argue so fervently for.
* From: http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks
By "protest," Gertrude doesn't mean "object" or "deny"—these meanings postdate Hamlet. The principal meaning of "protest" in Shakespeare's day was "vow" or "declare solemnly," a meaning preserved in our use of "protestation." When we smugly declare that "the lady doth protest too much," we almost always mean that the lady objects so much as to lose credibility. Gertrude says that Player Queen affirms so much as to lose credibility. Her vows are too elaborate, too artful, too insistent. More cynically, the queen may also imply that such vows are silly in the first place, and thus may indirectly defend her own remarriage.
