Installation on more than one home computer

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@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AIK7i.1958$d63.268@trnddc06...
>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@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AIK7i.1958$d63.268@trnddc06...
>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:
> 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@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452@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.

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.

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/...17----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
>
> "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@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216@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.

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Rock" <Rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216@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:
> 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/...17----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