re "Copying is only wrong if you are making a profit"

I suggest you look up the word copy! Living in someone's house is not copying is it - and by living in someone else's house, you are arguably permanently depriving them or their property, even if you allow them access to it. It's OK to put a contrary point across, I'm not disputing whether the point you are making is right or wrong - just the example, at least make it sensible.

Intellectual property is as difficult to prove as disprove. It's interesting that MS have threatened to sue GPL *nix users for intellectual copyright, when Unix - of which most of the GPL'd OS's are based - was arguably the first portable OS, which DOS arguably copied. After MS acquired DOS (after all Bill and Paul did not actually write it) they made it available at a cost - or copying someone else's intellectual property (a concept counts as intellectual property) with out permission for financial gain, which is morally wrong - as we can all agree.

I you don't like WGA, READ THE AGREEMENT/INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE AGREEING TO INSTALL!!! It' is written in fairly simple terms. Oh - and MS, rightfully (I feel dirty now!), restrict access to some of their other software if you don't install WGA.

Don't like MS - use a GPL alternative - that's the best way to get at them. There are plenty of alternatives out there for every piece of commercial software - some of it better than the commecially available stuff. I doubt that they actually have a leg to stand on legally when challenging the GPL - most of what Balmer has said/implied seems to be nought but FUD! This all seem fairly academic at the moment anyhow...

As for MS replacing 'pirated' software with a genuine license - if you were to buy a Ferrari for £10000 that on the face of it was real, but turned out to be a replica, would you expect Ferrari to replace it? No. You should have realised that a new Ferrari at that price had to be a copy - or stolen. If it's too good to be true...