|
|
I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers. I installed XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps prompting me to officially register. It says I have X number of days to register. I am wondering whether I will be able to load it on other computers, or if Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out there know? Thanks.
|
|
We all know that your EULA says you are entitled to install it on only ONE
machine!!!!!!!!!!
You want it on 2 ...buy another copy.
peter
"NowItsWhatever" <nospam[ at ]nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AIK7i.1958$d63.268[ at ]trnddc06...
[Quoted Text] >I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers. I installed
>XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps prompting me to
>officially register. It says I have X number of days to register. I am
>wondering whether I will be able to load it on other computers, or if
>Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out there know? Thanks.
|
|
"NowItsWhatever" <nospam[ at ]nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AIK7i.1958$d63.268[ at ]trnddc06...
[Quoted Text] >I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
Not legally, you weren't.
> I installed XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps
> prompting me to officially register. It says I have X number of days to
> register. I am wondering whether I will be able to load it on other
> computers, or if Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out there
> know? Thanks.
===
It's not asking you to register. It's asking you to activate, and it isn't
optional.
With one exception, all versions of Windows are licensed to one system per
install key (though in fact there's also a limit on the number of processors
per system). The one exception is the Volume License packaging of XP
Pro, where licenses are purchased in multiples of five, and a single key is
used. However, if the key is found to be abused, it may be blacklisted and
activation, validation and updates are blocked.
Activation and Windows validatation enforces this restriction, so that while
you can install more than once, without activation you have only a short
time to use the system, and you can't get many updates.
This is not a change from the licensing of any previous version. The only
difference is that technology exists to enforce the license.
If you want to use Windows on more than one machine, you have to pay for it.
If you don't want to do that, there's an option called Linux.
HTH
-pk
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
piracy you committed.
> I
> installed XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps
> prompting me to officially register. It says I have X number of days to
> register.
Registration is entirely optional. However, if you fail to *activate*
that copy of WinXP within the alloted time frame, it will cease to
function properly until activated.
> I am wondering whether I will be able to load it on other
> computers, or if Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out
> there know? Thanks.
How can you even ask this question? Have you been living in a cave
somewhere for the last 5 years?
You need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer on
which you install it.
Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it
is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which WinXP
licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that
Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism,
Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult)
multiple installations using a single license.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
|
|
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers[ at ]cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > NowItsWhatever wrote:
>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>
>
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license terms,
> so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software piracy
> you committed.
>
The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A licence
agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide
> by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the
> sort of casual software piracy you committed.
M.I.5¾ wrote:
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
> entitled in law to do.
The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are allowed to
make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other
words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
"M.I.5¾" wrote
[Quoted Text] >
> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>> piracy you committed.
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on multiple
computes.
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
"Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "M.I.5¾" wrote
>>
>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>
>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>>> piracy you committed.
>
>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
>> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
>> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>
> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
> multiple computes.
>
Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something the
software suppliers want you to believe.
|
|
"M.I.5¾" <no.one[ at ]no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1[ at ]glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "M.I.5¾" wrote
>>>
>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>
>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>>>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>>>> piracy you committed.
>>
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
>>> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
>>> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>
>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>> multiple computes.
>>
>
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
> the software suppliers want you to believe.
"Backup" as in keep a copy off-site.
If your house burns down, you have to buy a replacement computer.
Although your _original_ software packages have gone up in smoke, you don't
have to buy replacement software to load onto that computer because you have
"backup" copies of that software.
Steve
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.
M.I.5¾ wrote
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
> entitled in law to do.
Rock wrote:
> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
> multiple computes.
M.I.5¾ wrote:
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
> believe.
Repeating my last post in this conversation...
The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are allowed to
make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other
words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
Specifically:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy —
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for
archival purposes only ...".
Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
M.I.5¾ wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers[ at ]cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>
>>>I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>>
>>True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license terms,
>>so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software piracy
>>you committed.
>>
>
>
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A licence
> agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
Under US law (17 U.S.C. §117(2).) you have the lawful right to make
backup (archieval copies) of your software package or cd. The law *does
not* permit you to install multiple instances of the software to
multiple computers.
John
|
|
M.I.5¾ wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something the
> software suppliers want you to believe.
OK, so lets say a large outfit, like, hmmm, for example... Citibank,
which might have, oh about 100,000 computers across all their branches
and offices, they would be allowed to make copies of any software that
they bought and install it to all 100,000 computers without paying for
additional licenses?
John
|
|
Shenan Stanley wrote:
[Quoted Text] > NowItsWhatever wrote: >> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers. > > Bruce Chambers wrote: >> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, >> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and >> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent >> the sort of casual software piracy you committed. > > M.I.5¾ wrote >> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted >> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first >> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are >> entitled in law to do. > > Rock wrote: >> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on >> multiple computes. > > M.I.5¾ wrote: >> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a >> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy >> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no >> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup >> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to >> believe. > > Repeating my last post in this conversation... > > The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are allowed to > make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other > words - the copy is not for archival purposes. > > Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 ) > > Specifically: > > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy — > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for > the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of > another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step > in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and > that it is used in no other manner, or > (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and > that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued > possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. > > The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for > archival purposes only ...". > > > Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material. >
Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would indeed be created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with *A* machine.
I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from my CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with software....
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
>>> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
>>> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
>>> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.
>>
>> M.I.5¾ wrote
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
>>> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
>>> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
>>> entitled in law to do.
>>
>> Rock wrote:
>>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>>> multiple computes.
>>
>> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
>>> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
>>> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
>>> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
>>> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
>>> believe.
>>
>> Repeating my last post in this conversation...
>>
>> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are
>> allowed to
>> make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In
>> other
>> words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
>>
>> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
>> programs
>>
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
>> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy —
>> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
>> infringement for
>> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
>> making of
>> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
>>
>> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
>> essential step
>> in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a
>> machine and
>> that it is used in no other manner, or
>> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
>> only and
>> that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
>> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>>
>> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for
>> archival purposes only ...".
>>
>>
>> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material.
>>
>
> Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would
> indeed be created as an essential step in the utilization of the
> computer program in conjunction with *A* machine.
"that it is used in *no other manner*" (my emphasis)
IMO, the language could be more precise. But then again, I'm not a
lawyer. I would imagine this sentence is clear enough to those in that
discipline. My guess is that this covers a situation where you create a
disk from a hidden partition so that you may later restore your PC to
its original state.
> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from
> my CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with software....
You may want to consult with an attorney first. :-)
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Shenan Stanley wrote: > >> NowItsWhatever wrote: >> >>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers. >> >> >> Bruce Chambers wrote: >> >>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, >>> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and >>> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent >>> the sort of casual software piracy you committed. >> >> >> M.I.5¾ wrote >> >>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted >>> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first >>> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are >>> entitled in law to do. >> >> >> Rock wrote: >> >>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on >>> multiple computes. >> >> >> M.I.5¾ wrote: >> >>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a >>> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy >>> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no >>> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup >>> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to >>> believe. >> >> >> Repeating my last post in this conversation... >> >> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are >> allowed to >> make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other >> words - the copy is not for archival purposes. >> >> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer >> programs >> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html >> >> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 ) >> >> Specifically: >> >> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy — >> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an >> infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or >> authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer >> program provided: >> >> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential >> step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a >> machine and that it is used in no other manner, or >> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only >> and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued >> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. >> >> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for >> archival purposes only ...". >> >> >> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material. >> > > Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would indeed > be created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer > program in conjunction with *A* machine. > > I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from my > CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with software....
You are believing wrong. The copyright law it applies to artistic works
is different than as it applies to software. The law *does* *not*
permit you to install the same copy of the software to more than one
computer. The law simply allows you to make backup copies to be used in
case the original copy is lost or damaged.
John
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] > I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.
M.I.5¾ wrote
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
> entitled in law to do.
Rock wrote:
> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
> multiple computes.
M.I.5¾ wrote:
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
> believe.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are
> allowed to make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual
> use. In other words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
>
> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
> programs
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
> Specifically:
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy —
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
> infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
> or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
> computer program provided:
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
> essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
> conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner,
> or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
> only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
> continued
> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "...
> for archival purposes only ...".
>
>
> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright
> material.
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would
> indeed be created as an essential step in the utilization of the
> computer program in conjunction with *A* machine.
No it wouldn't.
Installation - which has its own internal copy/expansion methods for doing
so - is necessary to utilize the software on *A* machine.
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from
> my CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with
> software....
You can - but if you actually read what I posted (the links in particular)
you would see that Music and Software do not follow the same scope and the
section I posted above was specifically for software (Computer Programs).
You want the copyright scope for music?
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114
The whole thing:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
You can do what you want - but since copyright law was brought up - these
are the facts as written.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
"M.I.5¾" <no.one[ at ]no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fd94f$1_1[ at ]glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers[ at ]cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>>
>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>> piracy you committed.
>>
>
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
Perhaps you don't quite understand how the actual law applies to the actual
practice described.
The law may well allow you to make a copy of the media, primarily for
backup purposes, but it does not allow you to copy, redistribute and
reinstall the material beyond the license terms. And that's what the OP
is talking about doing.
If you wish to challenge this, by all means, consult with an intellectual
property lawyer and have your rights explained to you. And if you still
want to proceed, expect to pay for several years in litigation.
And I believe that you may actually be referring to first-sale rights, not
first-use rights.
HTH
-pk
|
|
'M.I.5¾' wrote:
| Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
| copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
| you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
| you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
the
| software suppliers want you to believe.
_____
You do not 'buy' a Microsoft operating system. You buy a license to USE the
operating system.
Since you are convinced to the contrary, be careful how you use what you do
not own.
Phil Weldon
"M.I.5¾" <no.one[ at ]no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1[ at ]glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
|
| "Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
| news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > "wrote
| >>
| >> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
| >>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
| >>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
| >>>
| >>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft
was
| >>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
| >>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual
software
| >>> piracy you committed.
| >
| >> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material
for
| >> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
| >> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
| >
| > Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
| > multiple computes.
| >
|
| Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
| copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
| you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
| you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
the
| software suppliers want you to believe.
|
|
|
|
"M.I.5¾" <no.one[ at ]no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1[ at ]glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "M.I.5¾" wrote
>>>
>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>
>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>>>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>>>> piracy you committed.
>>
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
>>> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
>>> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>
>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>> multiple computes.
>>
>
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
> the software suppliers want you to believe.
I don't understand your position here. Making a copy is fine. Installing
that copy on multiple machines is a violation of the EULA. What's your
point?
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
M.I.5¾ wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only.
The "copyright act" of what country? U.S. copyright law is very
specific. What the law specifically allows is a single copy for
*archival* (back-up) purposes only.
TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 1 , Sec. 117.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> This is known as 'first use rights'.
There's no such recognized term under U.S. Code, that I can find. Of
what specific country are you speaking?
> A licence
> agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>
That's true. All you need do is take Microsoft to court and have their
EULA found to be in violation of that purported law you mention. Until
then, Microsoft is perfectly entitled to enforce their EULA as they see
fit, in accordance with existing case law.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
|
|
M.I.5¾ wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use.
Not under U.S. law, nor the laws of most signators to the U.N. Charter
and/or the various Intellectual Property treaties; in which country do
you reside?
> The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for.
Please provide a specific, verifiable reference for this mystery law.
> This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something the
> software suppliers want you to believe.
>
>
Nonsense; it's a Federal law.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
|
|
NowItsWhatever wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>
> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from my
> CD collection.
Why? Please cite a relevant court decision. (Yes, I know every one
does it, anyway.)
> Seems I should be able to do it with software....
>
Wishful thinking won't hold up in any court I've ever heard of.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
|
|
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers[ at ]cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%23islJxKpHHA.4632[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > M.I.5¾ wrote: >> >> >> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for >> your own personal use only. > > > The "copyright act" of what country? U.S. copyright law is very specific. > What the law specifically allows is a single copy for *archival* (back-up) > purposes only. > > TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 1 , Sec. 117. > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html> >> This is known as 'first use rights'. > > > There's no such recognized term under U.S. Code, that I can find. Of what > specific country are you speaking?
None. He's making it up to continue a trolling expedition.
But he or she is apparently trying to refer to "first sale rights", which
generally don't apply to the described context.
>
>> A licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>
>
>
> That's true. All you need do is take Microsoft to court and have their
> EULA found to be in violation of that purported law you mention.
And one might consider the number of successful prosecutions for piracy in
various countries, prosecutions which have resulted in criminal convictions
and penitentiary terms.
These convictions make it a pretty safe bet that the EULA and copyright
laws are in fact valid and enforceable, that the applicable laws and
penalties can in fact be criminal, and that the lawyers engaged to take MS
to court - or defend in response to charges - will make this clear.
-pk
> Until then, Microsoft is perfectly entitled to enforce their EULA as they
> see fit, in accordance with existing case law.
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
<snippage>
|
|
"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed[ at ]example.com> wrote in message
news:2j08i.17117$j63.13367[ at ]newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[Quoted Text] > 'M.I.5¾' wrote:
> | Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy
> of
> | copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously),
> for
> | you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to
> what
> | you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
> the
> | software suppliers want you to believe.
> _____
>
> You do not 'buy' a Microsoft operating system. You buy a license to USE
> the
> operating system.
> Since you are convinced to the contrary, be careful how you use what you
> do
> not own.
>
Why is that the yanks think that they are the only country in the world?
Everyone has rattled off a whole load of law that is completely
inapplicable. You might like to think that your laws apply throughout the
planet - but they don't.
Where I am, (UK) the prevailing opinion is that you buy the operating system
(or whatever) to use. There is no distinction in law between computer
copyright or any other copyright. Microsoft (and many others) maintain that
you don't buy it and that you only have a licence to use it (but that is
purely a biased opinion based on vested interest). Whenever the situation
is challenged and Microsoft try to take someone to court, Microsoft have
always backed out of the case at the 11th hour. Since no case has thus far
got to court, nothing has been established.
The position is reinforced by Microsoft's own licence agreement which states
that you either accept the agreement or obtain a refund on the software. No
one in the UK has ever succeeded in obtaining a refund. Further, throughout
Europe, a licence agreement that is contained inside the packaging is not
enforceable as it constitutes a unilateral variation to an agreed contract
of sale - or at least it would do if it wasn't for the fact that it is
presented as a fait acompli agreement between the purchaser and some company
who has no prior contractual relationship with that purchaser. Since the
purchaser has no effective right of negotiation (and there is no
consideration), the agreement is unlawful.
The fact is that the purshaser of the software can do pretty much what he
likes with it as long as he doesn't copy it for purposes other than his
personal use. In just that same way, that if I buy the latest Harry Potter
book, I can read it, lend it to someone else, sell it or whatever. The book
publishers have long wanted to restrict book useage to the original
purchaser, but have been unable to do so.
|
|
"Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23tEbCyJpHHA.588[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "M.I.5¾" <no.one[ at ]no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:465fe9e5$1_1[ at ]glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> "M.I.5¾" wrote
>>>>
>>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft
>>>>> was naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the
>>>>> license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual
>>>>> software piracy you committed.
>>>
>>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material
>>>> for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'.
>>>> A licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>>
>>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>>> multiple computes.
>>>
>>
>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy
>> of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously),
>> for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to
>> what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just
>> something the software suppliers want you to believe.
>
>
> I don't understand your position here. Making a copy is fine. Installing
> that copy on multiple machines is a violation of the EULA. What's your
> point?
>
Under EU law, an EULA that is contained within a package that does not get
revealed until you open the shrink wrap is unlawful and unenforceable.
Microsoft have always backed out of enforcing it at the last minute. There
is thus no established case law in support of an EULA in Europe.
|
|
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers[ at ]cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:ebeyqyKpHHA.4632[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy
>> of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously),
>> for you own personal use.
>
>
> Not under U.S. law, nor the laws of most signators to the U.N. Charter
> and/or the various Intellectual Property treaties; in which country do you
> reside?
>
Ah! Someone has tumbled that there are countries outside of Yankland.
>> The copyright act makes no specification as to what you use it for.
>
>
> Please provide a specific, verifiable reference for this mystery law.
>
No case has been successfully prosecuted in the courts within this
jurisdiction.
>
>> This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something the software
>> suppliers want you to believe.
>
> Nonsense; it's a Federal law.
>
Federal Law? What's one of those? Never heard of it. I believe Germany
may have some of those, but we certainly don't.
|
|
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers[ at ]cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:eoZG0zKpHHA.4632[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>
>>
>> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from my CD
>> collection.
>
>
> Why? Please cite a relevant court decision. (Yes, I know every one does
> it, anyway.)
>
A lot depends on where you are.
In Germany and Holland, it most definitely is legal. Blank audio recording
media even has a levy on it to compensate the recording artists. Other
countries vary considerably. Some countries permit it under arrangements
similar to what the yanks call 'first use rights'. In Australia, it is
quite legal. In other countries (such as UK), it is technically illegal,
but as it is only a civil offence, the copyright owners can only recover
their actual losses. The actual loss from someone playing a copy of a song
for which they own a legitimate original is going to be relatively peanuts*.
The cost of geting those peanuts is totally disproportionate and non
recoverable.
*The royalty on a whole CD is only around GBP 0.04.
>
>> Seems I should be able to do it with software....
>>
The same principles apply to software (at least here) and although attempts
at enforcement have been made, they have always been dropped at the point
they are likely to get near a court.
|
|
"M.I.5¾" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Why is that the yanks think that they are the only country in the
> world? Everyone has rattled off a whole load of law that is
> completely inapplicable. You might like to think that your laws
> apply throughout the planet - but they don't.
>
> Where I am, (UK) the prevailing opinion is that you buy the
> operating system (or whatever) to use. There is no distinction
> in law between computer copyright or any other copyright.
> Microsoft (and many others) maintain that you don't buy it and
> that you only have a licence to use it (but that is purely a biased
> opinion based on vested interest). Whenever the situation is
> challenged and Microsoft try to take someone to court, Microsoft
> have always backed out of the case at the 11th hour. Since no
> case has thus far got to court, nothing has been established.
>
> The position is reinforced by Microsoft's own licence agreement
> which states that you either accept the agreement or obtain a
> refund on the software. No one in the UK has ever succeeded
> in obtaining a refund. Further, throughout Europe, a licence
> agreement that is contained inside the packaging is not enforceable
> as it constitutes a unilateral variation to an agreed contract of sale -
> or at least it would do if it wasn't for the fact that it is presented as
> a fait acompli agreement between the purchaser and some company who has no
> prior contractual relationship with that purchaser. Since
> the purchaser has no effective right of negotiation (and there is no
> consideration), the agreement is unlawful.
>
> The fact is that the purshaser of the software can do pretty much
> what he likes with it as long as he doesn't copy it for purposes
> other than his personal use. In just that same way, that if I buy the
> latest Harry Potter book, I can read it, lend it to someone else, sell
> it or whatever. The book publishers have long wanted to restrict
> book useage to the original purchaser, but have been unable to do so.
You're right on all points. Many American posters mistakenly think
that American copyright law applies throughout the world, and it does
NOT. Many American individual users also think that Microsoft will
come after them for violations of the EULA, but Microsoft is only bluffing.
Americans like to think that the USA is a country ruled by law, not
practicality and economics, but that is still far from the truth. The truth
is that Microsoft only goes after the large piraters and large companies
that violate what Microsoft considers to be its economic interests and
avoids raking the little guy over the coals for fear of angering the entire
world of users and customers. In other words, its all politics, economics,
and bluff, and very little law. The little guy doesn't really have to worry
unless he gets into pirating of Microsoft's software on a "noticeable"
scale. What really applies most is one's own conscience and ethical
values and attitudes toward the rights of authors to be rewarded for
their work and creations.
*TimDaniels*
|
|
"M.I.5¾" wrote
[Quoted Text] >
> "Rock" wrote
>> "M.I.5¾" wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Rock" wrote>>>> "M.I.5¾" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft
>>>>>> was naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the
>>>>>> license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of
>>>>>> casual software piracy you committed.
>>>>
>>>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material
>>>>> for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'.
>>>>> A licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>>>
>>>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>>>> multiple computes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy
>>> of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously),
>>> for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as
>>> to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just
>>> something the software suppliers want you to believe.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your position here. Making a copy is fine.
>> Installing that copy on multiple machines is a violation of the EULA.
>> What's your point?
>>
>
> Under EU law, an EULA that is contained within a package that does not get
> revealed until you open the shrink wrap is unlawful and unenforceable.
> Microsoft have always backed out of enforcing it at the last minute.
> There is thus no established case law in support of an EULA in Europe.
Ok, now we know the perspective you're talking from. You didn't mention EU
before. It does come down to integrity. Abiding by what one agreed to when
they installed the OS. To me that's much more binding than concern for
reprisals.
--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
|
|
Bruce Chambers wrote:
[Quoted Text] > NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>
>>
>> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from
>> my CD collection.
>
>
> Why? Please cite a relevant court decision. (Yes, I know every one
> does it, anyway.)
I believe it works the other way around.
That is, unless you can cite a relevant court decision that supports the
prohibition of making mix tapes or just ripping CD tracks so that you
may listen to them on an iPod, then it is reasonable to assume that this
activity is legal.
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0295_01C7A6D4.568B3630
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
yep and he shoe is on the other foot with microsoft failing to live up =
to its responsibilities in providing updates/upgrades for it's =
hardware/software for new OS like vista.
mikeyhsd[ at ]comcast.net
"Rock" <Rock[ at ]nospam.net> wrote in message =
news:e$B3yAvpHHA.4544[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
"M.I.5=BE" wrote
>
> "Rock" wrote
>> "M.I.5=BE" wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Rock" wrote>>>> "M.I.5=BE" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, =
Microsoft=20
>>>>>> was naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the =
>>>>>> license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of =
>>>>>> casual software piracy you committed.
>>>>
>>>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted =
material=20
>>>>> for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use =
rights'.=20
>>>>> A licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law =
to do.
>>>>
>>>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy =
on=20
>>>> multiple computes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a =
copy=20
>>> of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy =
obviously),=20
>>> for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no =
specification as=20
>>> to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is =
just=20
>>> something the software suppliers want you to believe.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your position here. Making a copy is fine.=20
>> Installing that copy on multiple machines is a violation of the =
EULA.=20
>> What's your point?
>>
>
> Under EU law, an EULA that is contained within a package that does =
not get=20
> revealed until you open the shrink wrap is unlawful and =
unenforceable.=20
> Microsoft have always backed out of enforcing it at the last minute. =
> There is thus no established case law in support of an EULA in =
Europe.
Ok, now we know the perspective you're talking from. You didn't =
mention EU=20
before. It does come down to integrity. Abiding by what one agreed =
to when=20
they installed the OS. To me that's much more binding than concern =
for=20
reprisals.
--=20
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]=20
------=_NextPart_000_0295_01C7A6D4.568B3630
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16448" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>yep and he shoe is on the other foot =
with microsoft=20
failing to live up to its responsibilities in providing updates/upgrades =
for=20
it's hardware/software for new OS like vista.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P> </P>
<P><FONT color=3D#ff0000>
<MARQUEE scrollAmount=3D2 scrollDelay=3D9 behavior=3Dalternate =
width=3D"35%"=20
bgColor=3D#ffff00 height=3D22><A=20
href=3D"mailto:mikeyhsd[ at ]comcast.net">mikeyhsd[ at ]comcast.net</A></MARQUEE></=
FONT></P>
<P> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rock" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:Rock[ at ]nospam.net">Rock[ at ]nospam.net</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:e$B3yAvpHHA.4544[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl">news:e$B3yAvpHHA.4544=
[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl</A>...</DIV>"M.I.5=BE" =20
wrote<BR>><BR>> "Rock" wrote<BR>>> "M.I.5=BE" wrote in=20
message<BR>>>><BR>>>> "Rock" wrote>>>> =
"M.I.5=BE"=20
wrote<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> "Bruce =
Chambers" =20
wrote<BR>>>>>>> NowItsWhatever=20
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>> I was able to install Windows =
2000 on=20
multiple home=20
computers.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> =
True, but=20
not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft=20
<BR>>>>>>> was naive enough to expect people to be =
honest=20
and abide by the <BR>>>>>>> license terms, so there =
was no=20
mechanism to prevent the sort of <BR>>>>>>> casual =
software=20
piracy you committed.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>> The=20
copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material=20
<BR>>>>>> for your own personal use only. This is =
known=20
as 'first use rights'. <BR>>>>>> A licence agreement =
cannot=20
change what you are entitled in law to=20
do.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Making a backup copy is =
different=20
than installing the same copy on <BR>>>>> multiple=20
computes.<BR>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> Where =
does=20
'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy=20
<BR>>>> of copyrighted material (for which you own a =
legitimate copy=20
obviously), <BR>>>> for you own personal use. The =
copyright act=20
makes no specification as <BR>>>> to what you use it =
for. This=20
busines of a 'backup copy' only is just <BR>>>> something the =
software suppliers want you to =
believe.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> I=20
don't understand your position here. Making a copy is fine. =
<BR>>>=20
Installing that copy on multiple machines is a violation of the EULA.=20
<BR>>> What's your point?<BR>>><BR>><BR>> Under EU =
law, an=20
EULA that is contained within a package that does not get <BR>> =
revealed=20
until you open the shrink wrap is unlawful and unenforceable. <BR>> =
Microsoft have always backed out of enforcing it at the last minute. =
<BR>>=20
There is thus no established case law in support of an EULA in=20
Europe.<BR><BR>Ok, now we know the perspective you're talking =
from. You=20
didn't mention EU <BR>before. It does come down to =
integrity. =20
Abiding by what one agreed to when <BR>they installed the OS. To =
me=20
that's much more binding than concern for <BR>reprisals.<BR><BR>-- =
<BR>Rock=20
[MS-MVP User/Shell] <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0295_01C7A6D4.568B3630--
|
|
M.I.5¾ wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>
>>> The copyright act makes no specification as to what you use it for.
>>
>> Please provide a specific, verifiable reference for this mystery law.
>>
>
> No case has been successfully prosecuted in the courts within this
> jurisdiction.
>
No, no, my reading challenged "friend." Please provide a link to prove
that the law is as you say it is, as I have done.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
|
|
M.I.5¾ wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>
> Why is that the yanks think that they are the only country in the world?
> Everyone has rattled off a whole load of law that is completely
> inapplicable. You might like to think that your laws apply throughout the
> planet - but they don't.
>
Which is why I asked what country you were in and for you to provide a
verifiable reference for the pertinent law in your location. You have
so far ignored the request for a specific reference, so I can only
assume that you're lying about the contents of said "law."
> Where I am, (UK) the prevailing opinion is that you buy the operating system
> (or whatever) to use.
Don't care about "opinion." What does the law actually say? Provide a
link to a reputable source, or stop making such claims.
> There is no distinction in law between computer
> copyright or any other copyright.
Having lived in Great Britain for several years, I've no doubt
whatsoever that the above is a falsehood. Whether deliberate or not
remains to be seen, but I've my suspicions.
> Microsoft (and many others) maintain that
> you don't buy it and that you only have a licence to use it (but that is
> purely a biased opinion based on vested interest). Whenever the situation
> is challenged and Microsoft try to take someone to court, Microsoft have
> always backed out of the case at the 11th hour.
Please name a single specific instance. Provide links to a reputable
source.
Until you can provide some sort of substantiation for what appear to be
patently absurd claims, no one is going to give you a bit of credibility.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|