Installation on more than one home computer

[Phil Weldon]

'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

|
| | > "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.
|
|

 

[HeyBub]

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.

"If the circumvention violations [of the DCMA] are determined to be willful
and for commercial or private financial gain, first time offenders may be
fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat
offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000,
imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Criminal penalties are not
applicable to nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions."

 

[Rock]

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?

 

[Alias]

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.

"If the circumvention violations [of the DCMA] are determined to be willful
and for commercial or private financial gain, first time offenders may be
fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat
offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000,
imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Criminal penalties are not
applicable to nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions."

This is a quote from? Private gain is interpreted how? Give references;
your opinion is not sufficient. In addition, if this quote has an
validity, it's probably only for the USA which most of the world not
only doesn't agree with but could care less what it says. Moreover, this
quote doesn't mention Windows EULA in any of its flavors. Show me a case
where someone breached their EULA and got convicted for doing so.

Alias

 

[Alias]

'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.

Yeah, the old bait and switch con game. How come NO ONE advertises that
they sell licenses but do advertise that they sell SOFTWARE?

Alias

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

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?

Nope. The bigger they are the larger they fall.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

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:



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]

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:



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]

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:



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]

Yes, he was. It is not illegal to breach an EULA that has never held up
in a court of law.

Yes, it is. Until a specific EULA is found by a court of law to be
either in violation of an earlier law, or unconsionable, it is a legally
enforceable contrat under the Uniform Commercial Code.

And, even if it was, it is a civil, not criminal,
offense.

It's still a violation of the law (illegal, in simple terms),
regardless of whether it's a violation of criminal or civil code.

But you've been told all of this before, and are just lying.



--

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

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.

Oh, puhlease.... Your tin-foil hat is showing. Pay no attention to
those black helicopters hovering over your house. And I do wish you'd
make up your mind about Microsft: for years you've essentially called
them too stupid to do anything right, and now, all of a sudden, their
criminal masterminds capable of conceiving and implementing a years-long
conspiracy without anyone but you noticing?

Serious, can you provide a single, verifable shred of evidense to
support such an absurd assumption? (I won't hold my breath.)


--

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]

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.

"If the circumvention violations [of the DCMA] are determined to be
willful and for commercial or private financial gain, first time offenders
may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For
repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000,
imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Criminal penalties are not
applicable to nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational
institutions."

Having been in the military, I've had to interpret rules, regulations and so
forth for junior personnel. There's always something in there that people
overlook. The keyword in your reply is the word "and". That means that
what precedes "and", and, what follows "and" must be true for the rest to be
true.

I see no reason for both willful and financial gain to be true here.
Dave

 

[Alias]

Oh, puhlease.... Your tin-foil hat is showing. Pay no attention to
those black helicopters hovering over your house. And I do wish you'd
make up your mind about Microsft: for years you've essentially called
them too stupid to do anything right, and now, all of a sudden, their
criminal masterminds capable of conceiving and implementing a years-long
conspiracy without anyone but you noticing?

Gates has hated hobbyists since the late 70s and accused them of being
thieves way back then. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what
they've done or for them to do it.

Serious, can you provide a single, verifable shred of evidense to
support such an absurd assumption? (I won't hold my breath.)

AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS
By William Henry Gates III

February 3, 1976

An Open Letter to Hobbyists

To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack
of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good
software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is
wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to
expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the
initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of
the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now
we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer
time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are
using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent,
however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of
all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we
have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair
BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you
steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is
something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at
MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling
software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead
make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good
software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for
nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all
bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no
one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have
written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is
very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most
directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money
on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose
in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should
be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a
suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being
able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.



Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft

Alias

 

[Daave]

Patrick Keenan wrote:
I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.

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.

"If the circumvention violations [of the DCMA] are determined to be
willful and for commercial or private financial gain, first time
offenders may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or
both. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine
of $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Criminal
penalties are not applicable to nonprofit libraries, archives, and
educational institutions."

Having been in the military, I've had to interpret rules, regulations
and so forth for junior personnel. There's always something in there
that people overlook. The keyword in your reply is the word "and".
That means that what precedes "and", and, what follows "and" must be
true for the rest to be true.

I see no reason for both willful and financial gain to be true here.

Depends on how you interpret the term "financial gain." Although I think
it's a stretch, there may be others who would argue that realizing a
savings from not having to purchase an additional license is the same
things as financial gain.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Gates has hated hobbyists since the late 70s and accused them of being
thieves way back then. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what
they've done or for them to do it.

In other words, you cannot answer the question and are ineptly trying
to change the subject.

Irrelevancy snipped....




--

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Depends on how you interpret the term "financial gain." Although I think
it's a stretch, there may be others who would argue that realizing a
savings from not having to purchase an additional license is the same
things as financial gain.

*Exactly!* And it's no "stretch;" one of the fundamental principles of
any capitalist system is, as so succinctly expressed by Benjamin
Franklin, "A penny saved is a penny earned."


--

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

 

[Alias]

In other words, you cannot answer the question and are ineptly
trying to change the subject.

Irrelevancy snipped....

False. It's not my fault you can't do logic.

Fact: MS knew their software could be easily copied as far back as 1976.

Fact: The fact that their software could easily be copied allowed them
to corner the OS and Office market and become one of the richest
corporations in the world.

Fact: once they cornered the market, greed set in and up popped the
ineffective anti piracy crap and now the DRM.

You need to take your blinders off, try to respond to content and stop
using ad hominems to state your case.

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

False. It's not my fault you can't do logic.

I can do logic; you're the one raising irrelevancies and trying too
change the subject.

Fact: MS knew their software could be easily copied as far back as 1976.

So? The same is true of every other software company, every music
recording studio, every movie studio, and every television network.
Have not all of these industries continually been trying to improve
their methods of protecting their intellectual property?

Fact: The fact that their software could easily be copied allowed them
to corner the OS and Office market and become one of the richest
corporations in the world.

Not a fact! Simply an unsubstantiated assertion from one rabidly
anti-Microsoft troll. Correlation is not causation.

Fact: once they cornered the market, greed set in and up popped the
ineffective anti piracy crap and now the DRM.

Again, not a fact! Simply an unsubstantiated assertion from one
rabidly anti-Microft troll. (And please name one single gbusiness that
isn't motivated by greed, anyway. that is, after all, why businesses
exist: to make money.)

You need to take your blinders off, ...

Pot, Kettle, Kettle, pot.

.... try to respond to content

If your so-called "content" were ever on point, I would.

and stop
using ad hominems

An observation of behavior is not an "ad hominem." It is a simple
statement of fact, which, in your case, goes to credibility.


--

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

 

[Alias]

I can do logic; you're the one raising irrelevancies and trying too
change the subject.



So? The same is true of every other software company, every music
recording studio, every movie studio, and every television network. Have
not all of these industries continually been trying to improve their
methods of protecting their intellectual property?

Gosh, I thought business were in business to make good products and that
profit would naturally follow. How silly of me!

Not a fact! Simply an unsubstantiated assertion from one rabidly
anti-Microsoft troll. Correlation is not causation.

Yes, it's a fact. Live with it.

Again, not a fact! Simply an unsubstantiated assertion from one
rabidly anti-Microft troll. (And please name one single gbusiness that
isn't motivated by greed, anyway. that is, after all, why businesses
exist: to make money.)

Again, a fact. Live with it. Businesses exist because people buy their
products. When people are unhappy with their products, they cease to
exist. MS has forgotten this and so have you.

Pot, Kettle, Kettle, pot.
False.



If your so-called "content" were ever on point, I would.




An observation of behavior is not an "ad hominem."

Saying I am "inept" is an ad hominem, no matter how you slice it. Saying
I am a "rabidly anti-Microft [sic] troll" is another.

It is a simple

statement of fact, which, in your case, goes to credibility.

You calling me "inept" and a "rabidly anti-Microft [sic] troll" is your
opinion and you used it to mask not responding to content in a lame
attempt to denigrate me instead and thus dismiss my argument.

Alias

 

[Alias]

I can do logic; you're the one raising irrelevancies and trying too
change the subject.



So? The same is true of every other software company, every music
recording studio, every movie studio, and every television network. Have
not all of these industries continually been trying to improve their
methods of protecting their intellectual property?



Not a fact! Simply an unsubstantiated assertion from one rabidly
anti-Microsoft troll. Correlation is not causation.



Again, not a fact! Simply an unsubstantiated assertion from one
rabidly anti-Microft troll. (And please name one single gbusiness that
isn't motivated by greed, anyway. that is, after all, why businesses
exist: to make money.)




Pot, Kettle, Kettle, pot.




If your so-called "content" were ever on point, I would.




An observation of behavior is not an "ad hominem." It is a simple
statement of fact, which, in your case, goes to credibility.

Stick to helping people with OE. You're much better at that.

Alias