Product Activation

[Guest]

Ok I think Im alittle confused here. I specifically went through the trouble
of resintalling windows from an original CD (as I was originally using a
pirated copy) so I could use windows 'legally' and take advantage of the
various benefits (SP2, security updates, etc.) Now that I try to activate it,
it says my product key has already exhausted the number of times it can be
used for activation. Im practically using a brand new CD, I think Ive only
used this CD once before and that was to install and activate windows on
another computer. What does this mean...all the money I paid for the CD is
down the drain??? just because its been activated once before? Can someone
please help me out??

Thanks

Fazal

 

[Patrick Keenan]

Ok I think Im alittle confused here. I specifically went through the
trouble
of resintalling windows from an original CD (as I was originally using a
pirated copy) so I could use windows 'legally' and take advantage of the
various benefits (SP2, security updates, etc.) Now that I try to activate
it,
it says my product key has already exhausted the number of times it can be
used for activation.

Did you buy this as shrinkwrapped in a store, or online, or....?

Im practically using a brand new CD, I think Ive only
used this CD once before and that was to install and activate windows on
another computer.

Is it still installed on that other PC? An XP install key, with the
exception noted below, can be active on only one system.

If you want to installl on another system, you need another license.

What does this mean...all the money I paid for the CD is
down the drain???

If it's still in use on the other system, no, that's what you paid for.

Except in the case of the Volume License Agreement, which starts in
quantities of five and only applies to XP Pro, it's one key - one system.

just because its been activated once before? Can someone
please help me out??

If you've removed it from the other machine, go through online Activation
and when it fails you'll be offered a phone number. Call the number and
explain that you've moved the license (this may only work with retail, not
OEM discs) and ask for a new activation code.

HTH
-pk

 

[Peter Foldes]

You will need to purchase another XP License.. You can install XP only on one(1) computer as per the Eula

 

[Guest]

Yes - if the CD has already being used and activated, you need another CD or
License.

How to obtain additional licenses for Windows XP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814175/en-us

Hope this can provide help.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ok I think Im alittle confused here. I specifically went through the trouble
of resintalling windows from an original CD (as I was originally using a
pirated copy) so I could use windows 'legally' and take advantage of the
various benefits (SP2, security updates, etc.) Now that I try to activate it,
it says my product key has already exhausted the number of times it can be
used for activation. Im practically using a brand new CD, I think Ive only
used this CD once before and that was to install and activate windows on
another computer.

The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for each
computer.

There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's been in
effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows 3.1. The only
thing new with XP is that there's now an enforcement mechanism.

If yours is a retail version, not an OEM one, you can buy extra
licenses (see
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp). But it's
not generally a good deal. The problem is that Microsoft sells
additional licenses at only a small savings over the list price.
You're almost certainly better off just buying a complete second copy
from a discount source.

 

[Alias]

The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for each
computer.

Yada, yada, yada, we all know the one license of Windows per computer
scam. We also know the EULA license scam.

The EULA was written by a team of lawyers whose only purpose was to
state up what you *can't* do with Windows. GPL, OTOH, was written by a
human being to tell you what you *can" do with your OS.

As old Abe was purported to have said, "You can fool some of the people
all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot
fool all of the people all of the time", even though MS would love to do
just that.

 

[Alias]

You will need to purchase another XP License.. You can install XP only on one(1) computer as per the Eula

Correction: MAY install XP only on one computer. One *can* install XP on
as many computers as one likes if it's a cracked version and you can
even get all the security updates.

 

[Curt Christianson]

The "law" says it's illegal to go 100 mph in a 30 mph zone...but I guess
it's alright as long as I don't get caught!

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

| Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
| > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:16:00 -0700, Fazal
| >
| >> Ok I think Im alittle confused here. I specifically went through the
trouble
| >> of resintalling windows from an original CD (as I was originally using
a
| >> pirated copy) so I could use windows 'legally' and take advantage of
the
| >> various benefits (SP2, security updates, etc.) Now that I try to
activate it,
| >> it says my product key has already exhausted the number of times it can
be
| >> used for activation. Im practically using a brand new CD, I think Ive
only
| >> used this CD once before and that was to install and activate windows
on
| >> another computer.
| >
| >
| > The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for each
| > computer.
|
| Yada, yada, yada, we all know the one license of Windows per computer
| scam. We also know the EULA license scam.
|
| The EULA was written by a team of lawyers whose only purpose was to
| state up what you *can't* do with Windows. GPL, OTOH, was written by a
| human being to tell you what you *can" do with your OS.
|
| As old Abe was purported to have said, "You can fool some of the people
| all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot
| fool all of the people all of the time", even though MS would love to do
| just that.
|
| --
| Alias
| To email me, remove shoes

 

[Guest]

SURE, but there are many risks of 'cracking' Windows XP from the Internet. I
once tried to crack 'SpeedUpMyPC 2.0' full version, I succeeded (sorry to the
people at Uniblue) but days later it stopped working.

However, did the same thing with "Keyfinder Thing 3" and instead, it damaged
my computer instead. Plus, it did NOT find the correct product keys, it was
slow, and it should have detected new product keys.

So you can crack software all you like, but if you want the most *secure*
and *reliable* software, get a new product key or license, otherwise pay the
price and get a new computer or OS.

John.

 

[Alias]

SURE, but there are many risks of 'cracking' Windows XP from the Internet. I
once tried to crack 'SpeedUpMyPC 2.0' full version, I succeeded (sorry to the
people at Uniblue) but days later it stopped working.

However, did the same thing with "Keyfinder Thing 3" and instead, it damaged
my computer instead. Plus, it did NOT find the correct product keys, it was
slow, and it should have detected new product keys.

So you can crack software all you like, but if you want the most *secure*
and *reliable* software, get a new product key or license, otherwise pay the
price and get a new computer or OS.

John.

I've seen cracked copies of XP Pro that worked better than the "genuine" XP.

 

[Alias]

The "law" says it's illegal to go 100 mph in a 30 mph zone...but I guess
it's alright as long as I don't get caught!

Um, Redmond's EULA is *not* the Law. It's a document that high powered
lawyers have drawn up which tell you what you *can't* do with Windows.
Redmond has yet to go to court to legalize the scam because it's
unconscionable and they know it.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Um, Redmond's EULA is *not* the Law.

Yes, we know. You're the *ONLY* one who seems to think someone is
claiming otherwise. From whence does this delusion stem?

It's a document that high powered
lawyers have drawn up which tell you what you *can't* do with Windows.

A freely entered into *contract*, in simpl terms.

Redmond has yet to go to court to legalize the scam because it's
unconscionable and they know it.

You clearly don't have a clue, as you've repeatedly demonstrated, how
contract law works. It is up to the supposedly aggrieved party (someone
like yourself, say, who claims the contract is unfair) to take Microsoft
to court and prove the contract unconscionable. No one has ever been
able to do so, to date. Even when the US' Department of Justice and
several state's Attorney's General were trying to sue Microsoft for
monopolistic practices, not a single one of those highly
politically-motivated lawyers even suggested that there might be
anything wrong with the EULA? Why do you suppose that might be?

You call the EULA unconscionable; you prove it! Or just shut up about it.


--

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]

Yes, we know. You're the *ONLY* one who seems to think someone is
claiming otherwise. From whence does this delusion stem?

Read Curt's post.

A freely entered into *contract*, in simpl terms.

No, a document whose only purpose is to state what you can't do with
what you've bought.

You clearly don't have a clue, as you've repeatedly demonstrated,
how contract law works. It is up to the supposedly aggrieved party
(someone like yourself, say, who claims the contract is unfair) to take
Microsoft to court and prove the contract unconscionable. No one has
ever been able to do so, to date. Even when the US' Department of
Justice and several state's Attorney's General were trying to sue
Microsoft for monopolistic practices, not a single one of those highly
politically-motivated lawyers even suggested that there might be
anything wrong with the EULA? Why do you suppose that might be?

Anti trust suits and EULA scams are not the same thing, Bruce.

You call the EULA unconscionable; you prove it! Or just shut up
about it.

The fact that they don't want you to install it on more than one
computer for starters. The fact that ALL stores advertise that they sell
software and, in reality, are selling licenses to use the software, aka
bait and switch, is another. WPA & WGA are some more. Need I go on?

Now, don't trot out the "they are protecting their intellectual
property" trip because, as you well know, MS made BILLIONS and BILLIONS
with Win 9x, NT and W2K that didn't come with that baggage.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Read Curt's post.

And at no time did he say that the EULA is a law. Perhaps you should
have read it, instead of trotting out one of your knee-jerk strawman
"arguments?"

No, a document whose only purpose is to state what you can't do with
what you've bought.

What's the weather like, there in the state of denial?

Anti trust suits and EULA scams are not the same thing, Bruce.


The fact that they don't want you to install it on more than one
computer for starters. The fact that ALL stores advertise that they sell
software and, in reality, are selling licenses to use the software, aka
bait and switch, is another. WPA & WGA are some more. Need I go on?

No, you've proven quite thoroughly that you haven't a rational argument
and are only trying to change the subject by raising irrelevancies.
You've yet to demonstrate how any of this is "unconscionable," or even
how Microsoft might be responsible for other vendors advertising copy.

Now, don't trot out the "they are protecting their intellectual
property" trip because, as you well know, MS made BILLIONS and BILLIONS
with Win 9x, NT and W2K that didn't come with that baggage.

On the contrary, The EULAs for all of those products are pretty much
identical when it comes to the number of installations permitted. If
you'd ever read one, you'd know that. Why weren't those EULAs
"unconscionable?" Why weren't you protesting them? Oh, I know!
Microsoft finally took steps to enforce their long-standing licensing
terms, and now you're put out because you no longer can easily install a
single license on multiple computers.


--

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

 

[GHalleck]

Yes, we know. You're the *ONLY* one who seems to think someone is
claiming otherwise. From whence does this delusion stem?





A freely entered into *contract*, in simpl terms.




You clearly don't have a clue, as you've repeatedly demonstrated,
how contract law works. It is up to the supposedly aggrieved party
(someone like yourself, say, who claims the contract is unfair) to take
Microsoft to court and prove the contract unconscionable. No one has
ever been able to do so, to date. Even when the US' Department of
Justice and several state's Attorney's General were trying to sue
Microsoft for monopolistic practices, not a single one of those highly
politically-motivated lawyers even suggested that there might be
anything wrong with the EULA? Why do you suppose that might be?

You call the EULA unconscionable; you prove it! Or just shut up
about it.

To the contrary, in copyright infringement and licensing cases, the
"aggrieved" party, or plaintiff, is normally the copyright/license
holder and not the licensee. It makes sense since the licensee is the
party who has infringed or violated the agreement. One of these days,
Microsoft is going to have to file a civil case on its own (i.e., not
pursuing a criminal action) or inadvertantly become a defendant in an
action whereby someone claims that Microsoft is not actively enforcing
its ownerships of intellectual property. Is that the situaion that you
are describing? It would be very interesting to see what the majority
of a jury thinks and decides in such a civil action.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Ok I think Im alittle confused here. I specifically went through
the trouble of resintalling windows from an original CD (as I was
originally using a pirated copy) so I could use windows 'legally'
and take advantage of the various benefits (SP2, security updates,
etc.) Now that I try to activate it, it says my product key has
already exhausted the number of times it can be used for
activation. Im practically using a brand new CD, I think Ive only
used this CD once before and that was to install and activate
windows on another computer. What does this mean...all the money I
paid for the CD is down the drain??? just because its been
activated once before? Can someone please help me out??

You *may* be confused.

You purchased/obtained a Windows XP CD... (original as you put it.)
How many licenses for this CD did you purchase?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

To the contrary, in copyright infringement and licensing cases, the
"aggrieved" party, or plaintiff, is normally the copyright/license
holder and not the licensee. It makes sense since the licensee is the
party who has infringed or violated the agreement.

In copyright/licensing infringement cases, you'd be correct. But it's
easy to mix oranges and apples here, which is what I think you've done.
We're (or, rather, I am, at least) discussing a contract matter, which
is something different. The party who objects to the terms of the
contract, and who wants to be relieved from having to abide by those
terms, would normally be the one to initiate the action. (Of course,
either party would be free to pursue satisfaction in the event of any
alleged breach of the contract, as well.)

One of these days,
Microsoft is going to have to file a civil case on its own (i.e., not
pursuing a criminal action) or inadvertantly become a defendant in an
action whereby someone claims that Microsoft is not actively enforcing
its ownerships of intellectual property.

Are they not already actively "enforcing their ownership" by initiating
the WPA requirement? And for Microsoft to pursue civil action against
an individual, no matter how "correct" or "justified" they may or may
not be, would be a public relations nightmare. This, I think, is one of
the reasons why casual piracy has become almost considered an
"entitlement" by so many, and why Microsoft finally resorted to
technical means of safe-guarding their licenses. Granted, Microsoft has
"come to this party" very late in the day. A great many other software
manufacturers have long used more stringent technical measures (security
dongles, having to have the CD in the drive for the application/game to
work, registration codes that must be obtained by telephone, etc.) to
enforce their licensing terms.

Is that the situaion that you
are describing?

No, I don't think so.

It would be very interesting to see what the majority
of a jury thinks and decides in such a civil action.

I've little doubt that a jury of average people would side with the
individual against the "big, rich, evil" corporation, regardless of the
merits of the case. Witness the case where McDonalds was forced to
compensate the woman who stupidly spilled hot coffee on herself, and
then claimed that McDonalds failed to warn her that such an act might hurt.


--

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

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Alias wrote:

[snip of some obvious - OBVIOUS - trolling]

Yes, we know. You're the *ONLY* one who seems to think someone is
claiming otherwise. From whence does this delusion stem?

Please don't feed the ****ing troll.

YOU should know better.

 

[Alias]

In copyright/licensing infringement cases, you'd be correct. But
it's easy to mix oranges and apples here, which is what I think you've
done. We're (or, rather, I am, at least) discussing a contract matter,
which is something different. The party who objects to the terms of the
contract, and who wants to be relieved from having to abide by those
terms, would normally be the one to initiate the action. (Of course,
either party would be free to pursue satisfaction in the event of any
alleged breach of the contract, as well.)




Are they not already actively "enforcing their ownership" by
initiating the WPA requirement? And for Microsoft to pursue civil
action against an individual, no matter how "correct" or "justified"
they may or may not be, would be a public relations nightmare. This, I
think, is one of the reasons why casual piracy has become almost
considered an "entitlement" by so many, and why Microsoft finally
resorted to technical means of safe-guarding their licenses. Granted,
Microsoft has "come to this party" very late in the day. A great many
other software manufacturers have long used more stringent technical
measures (security dongles, having to have the CD in the drive for the
application/game to work, registration codes that must be obtained by
telephone, etc.) to enforce their licensing terms.




No, I don't think so.




I've little doubt that a jury of average people would side with the
individual against the "big, rich, evil" corporation, regardless of the
merits of the case. Witness the case where McDonalds was forced to
compensate the woman who stupidly spilled hot coffee on herself, and
then claimed that McDonalds failed to warn her that such an act might hurt.

Translation: MS is scared sh¡tless to take anyone to court for violating
their EULA so they resort to a flawed, ineffective technical control
that not only doesn't stop piracy but serves to get more and more people
to look at Open Source.

 

[Alias]

And at no time did he say that the EULA is a law. Perhaps you
should have read it, instead of trotting out one of your knee-jerk
strawman "arguments?"

He compared it to breaking the speeding *law*.

What's the weather like, there in the state of denial?

Dodging the issue does not a good argument make and shooting the
messenger doesn't either.

I don't need to prove it and MS is scared sh¡tless to try and show it
isn't by taking *anyone* to court for violating their EULA. Instead,
they inconvenience paying customers with their anti piracy crap.

No, you've proven quite thoroughly that you haven't a rational
argument and are only trying to change the subject by raising
irrelevancies.

They may be irrelevant to you but not to many people who can think for
themselves. You've just bought into the scam hook, line and sinker and
think it's just the normal way to do things.

You've yet to demonstrate how any of this is
"unconscionable," or even how Microsoft might be responsible for other
vendors advertising copy.

All they would have to do is insist on Truth in Advertising for their
MICROSOFT products. And they *can* insist but they prefer to keep the
people in the dark as to what they are really selling because if the
masses found out what they are actually doing, they would have second
thoughts about continuing with Windows.

On the contrary, The EULAs for all of those products are pretty much
identical when it comes to the number of installations permitted. If
you'd ever read one, you'd know that. Why weren't those EULAs
"unconscionable?" Why weren't you protesting them? Oh, I know!
Microsoft finally took steps to enforce their long-standing licensing
terms, and now you're put out because you no longer can easily install a
single license on multiple computers.

Again, moron, they made BILLIONS AND BILLIONS without a crappy anti
piracy program that is flawed and cracked before it even comes out, and,
in so doing, they cornered the PC Desktop market. IOW, if someone wants
to install XP or Vista on multiple computers, all they have to do is
call their friendly pirate who will gladly sell it to them cheaper than
MS ever will.

Think of MS as a drug pusher. Once they get everyone hooked, they really
start to charge the sh¡t out of them. Get the unconscionable part yet or
are you too freaking strung out?