Installation on more than one home computer

[Patrick Keenan]

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



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.

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.

<snippage>

 

[M.I.5¾]

'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.

 

[M.I.5¾]

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.

 

[M.I.5¾]

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.

Please provide a specific, verifiable reference for this mystery law.

No case has been successfully prosecuted in the courts within this
jurisdiction.

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.

 

[M.I.5¾]

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.

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]

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.

It is a fact. Whether it was intentional is another matter entirely. It
was well recognised that the Excel spreadsheet program was easily copyable,
whereas the lotus offering, 1-2-3, was tightly protected against copying
(and couldn't even be installed on more than one machine). It is also well
recognised that the easy of copying was why more people could use excel than
1-2-3, a fact that influenced many a corporate software purchasing decision.

Was it a deliberte ploy by Microsoft? The reader will have to make his own
mind up?

 

[M.I.5¾]

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

Indeed. Businesses exist to make profit*. If they can only make that
profit by producing good products then that is how it has to be. But if,
like Microsoft, you can make profit by selling shite, then that is exactly
what they will do.

*In fact as Microsoft is owned by its shareholders, it is required to
produce a return for its shareholders' investment. It can only really do
this by growing as a business. Because the market is effectively saturated,
growth can only be achieved by pursuading you customers to buy what they
already have, hence the continuous release of newer versions of the same
product.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

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*

 

[Rock]

"M.I.5¾" wrote

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.

 

[Daave]

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.

 

[mikeyhsd]

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.



(e-mail address removed)

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.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

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:



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]

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:



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]

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."

Presumably, you are American and like many of your kin folk are unaware that
there are jurisdictions outside of America where American law does not apply
(though you like to think it does). The statement that the EULA has not
been upheld in a court is true in Europe. In fact the European courts have
indeed ruled that any agreement not visible from outside of the shrink wrap
is not enforceable as it cannot form part of the original contract, but is
an attempt at an unlawful unilateral variation of it. There is a view that
it could not even be enforceable if visible as it is an agreement with an
organisation who is not a party to the sale contract (In that software is
rarely purchased directly from a Software manufacturer).

 

[M.I.5¾]

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.

What's one of those? The European courts have ruled that the EULA is not
enforceable.

 

[Alias]

*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."

We still don't know where the quote came from or if the poster wrote it
himself or if it is a law that only applies in Tahiti. With all due
respect to Mr Franklin (who I doubt very seriously was talking about
using *anything* pirated), to assume that someone would buy something if
they couldn't use a cracked version is not a correct assumption,
especially when the cost of Vista Retail Ultimate, for example, is over
$800 US Dollars in Europe and Retail Office Ultimate 2007 is over $1,200
US Dollars. Who's ripping off whom here, Bruce? Another great Statesman,
Abe Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time (Hi
Bruce!), and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool
all of the people all of the time."

Alias