Installation on more than one home computer

[NowItsWhatever]

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.

 

[peter]

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

 

[Patrick Keenan]

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

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:



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

 

[Lil' Dave]

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.

----------
No registration required. Activation, yes, required within 30 days of
installation of XP.

Multiple installations of any MS windows OS, with the appropriate 3rd party
boot manager is not that difficult. Different PCs, same XP installation and
product key, difficult with XP if activated.

Older windows, search for license.txt. More recent, search for eula.txt,
neweula.htm
Dave

 

[M.I.5¾]

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.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

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.

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

 

[Rock]

"Bruce Chambers" 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.

Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on multiple
computes.

 

[M.I.5¾]

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.

 

[Og]

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

 

[Shenan Stanley]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[John John]

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

 

[John John]

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

 

[NowItsWhatever]

M.I.5¾ wrote




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....

 

[Daave]

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.

 

[John John]

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

 

[Shenan Stanley]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Patrick Keenan]

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

 

[Alias]

Not legally, you weren't.

Yes, he was. It is not illegal to breach an EULA that has never held up
in a court of law. And, even if it was, it is a civil, not criminal,
offense.

===
It's not asking you to register. It's asking you to activate, and it isn't
optional.

Unless you have a cracked version.

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.

Unless you have a cracked version.

This is not a change from the licensing of any previous version. The only
difference is that technology exists to enforce the license.

And immediately, if not sooner, after the technology is released, so is
a crack.

If you want to use Windows on more than one machine, you have to pay for it.

Not if you have a cracked version.

If you don't want to do that, there's an option called Linux.

HTH
-pk

Or a cracked version ;-)

Alias

 

[Alias]

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.

Naive? Pulease. They knew very well what was going on as soon as they
released 95 and they WANTED casual piracy to occur in order to enable
them to corner the market. Once they cornered the market, greed set in
which is the only motivation for WPA, WGA/N, WGA/T, etc.

Most people are honest which is why MS made so much money on pre XP
Office and Windows. The fact that every single paying customer of MS now
is assumed to be a pirate until they prove otherwise will be the bane
for Windows and Office. The recent growth of Ubuntu and Dell putting
them on their machines is proof of the trend to dump Windows.

Alias