L
Leythos
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:52:52 +0000, Leythos wrote:
[snip]
Correction to my post, it should read "I have NO blind loyalty..."
[snip]
Correction to my post, it should read "I have NO blind loyalty..."
W
Woody
hey its late , and i'm outa here . it wouldn't be any fun if there wasn't
anyone to argue with . ;-)
there are two sides here . if people asking questions here got only one side
of the story ?............
anyone to argue with . ;-)
there are two sides here . if people asking questions here got only one side
of the story ?............
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers pirates
and thieves, and we would have no problem. We are not pirates and
thieves, and not one individual have ever been sued let alone found
guilty of theft or piracy for "fairly using" the copyrighted material,
that was legally sold to us, and there is no law that says we are
pirates and thieves.
It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license,
but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use
license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to
"fair use" their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the
privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what
"fair use" means.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
How about this - if I comment on it, I'll state what MS's position on it
is and add that this is MY Opinion of it. Then, if you comment about it,
how about you state that your part is YOUR Opinion on what you say. Then
when we're done, they have Opinions and can make up their own minds - ok?
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
"It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license,
but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use
license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to
'fair use' their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the
privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what
fair use' means."
Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a
private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law and
WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to "fairly
use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally sold to them,
according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" is.
That is not my opinion, it is a fact.
MS, or any software copyright owner, has the right to sue, as anyone can
sue over just about anything, but after over a dozen and more years of
selling retail software to private non-commercial individuals, it is not
very likely that ANY software company, especially MS, will challenge
"fair use" in a court of law after all this time has passed. That's
what PA is really all about. It is a marketing/propaganda scheme to
convince people that the EULA can strip them of their "fair use,"
without having to legally prove it in a real court of law. MS uses the
FUD surrounding PA to condition individuals into believing what they
don't have the balls to legally prove. That is my opinion, anyway,
though this use of PA/copy-protection as behavior modification makes the
most sense, because we all know that PA, or any copy-protection, does
even put a dent into REAL software piracy.
The software piracy rate had been dropping since 1994 through the advent
of the PC boom, and the explosion of file-sharing, until MS introduced
PA/copy-protection into mainstream consumer software, and since then,
the piracy rate has leveled off and remained static. And that is
according to the obviously biased statistics of the BSA, that gets their
piracy data from their members, like MS, Symantec, Adobe . . . .
If anything copy-protection tends to have the opposite effect than
intended, because all it does is piss consumers off, when they are still
paying for real piracy, which is included in the price of every product,
and then also having to go out of their way to prove that they aren't
the pirates and thieves. The behavior modification of copy-protection
will only tend to back fire in the long run, because it's a well known
psychological theory that if you treat a person like a criminal long
enough, that is what they are likely to become. Again, my opinion, but
it is serious food for thought.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
M
Michael Stevens
In
There is a link to specialized boot disks on the removal link. it is right
at the top of the page.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
Laurel said:
There is a link to specialized boot disks on the removal link. it is right
at the top of the page.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
R
RG
"kurttrail" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
And one day we will come and bring you rebellious colonials
back into line.
wrote in message
And one day we will come and bring you rebellious colonials
back into line.
L
Leythos
I've read your "Fair Use" posts, and I don't interpret the information the
same way you do. I see that it's clear that it's for backup purposes only,
that it does not allow more than one active installation against any
licensing rules by the vendor.
With that said, just because it's not been "Challenged" in court, that
does not make the action legal. What happens if the courts rule in MS's
favor over it - what happens to all of those inproper installs and the
people running them?
B
Bruce Chambers
Laurel said:
You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on
which you install it.
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 specific 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.
Assuming a retail license (OEM licenses are not transferable under
any circumstances), simply remove WinXP from the computer it is
currently on, and install it onto the new one. If it's been more than
120 days since you last activated that specific Product Key, you'll
most likely be able to activate via the Internet without problem. If
it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute phone call.
Here are the facts pertaining to activation:
Piracy Basics - Microsoft Product Activation
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/
Windows Product Activation (WPA)
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
No, it's not at all true. Retail licenses of Office (and many other
Microsoft products) permit the installation of the software onto one
desktop computer and one portable computer, provided that the license
owner is the primary user of both machines, but this has never been the
case with Microsoft operating systems.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
K
kurttrail
Leythos said:
Actually, it sounds like you are confusing "fair use" with Section
117(a), as you always make the mistake that Parts (1) & (2) have the
conjunction "and" between them, meaning that the conditions of both
Parts must be met, instead of the reality that they are actually
combined by "or," meaning that you only have to fulfill the conditions
of either Part (1) OR Part (2).
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights:
Computer programs
(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 following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese:
Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another installation provided:
(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making
use of the software together with a previously unknown computer 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"
That is a separate & distinct argument from that of "fair use." In the
Betamax case, the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" means when it
come to individuals.
"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
They didn't just limit individual "fair use" to that of a specific type
of copyrighted material in that case, but they left the definition broad
because individuals have to "fair use" of any type of copyrighted
material they have access to. It was one of the main rationales why
that the video recorder wasn't an infringement, because its main use
wasn't an infringement, that of individuals reproducing and using those
copies of copyrighted material.
"Fair Use" as written in copyright law, is mainly the talking about the
Public and/or commercial "fair uses" of copyrighted material, so in the
Betamax case the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" is for us
individuals in the privacy of our own homes. No copyright owner has the
right to KNOW what we do in our homes with our copies of our copyrighted
material. They do not possess that exclusive right. Remember we are
supposedly a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. We are
not the gov't for the corporate copyright elite.
Later in the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court makes reference to
another Supreme Court decision of the meaning of copyright, and for who
it is that is suppose to benefit the most from it.
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
Being paid by an individual for a copyrighted work once, is a "fair
return," and being paid more than once for the same copyrighted material
by an individual is more than a "fair return" and isn't in the general
public good.
Now Bruce likes to bring up what is written at the Stanford U. site,
which is stating the public and/or commercial aspects of "fair use," but
one place where private non-commercial "fair use" and public and/or
commercial "fair use" are similar is when the copyright owner disagrees
with the interpretation of "fair use" being used.
"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the
rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
So in a situation like copyrighted software, where a company like MS has
known that its copyrighted material has been "fairly used" for more than
a dozen years, and has yet to legally disagree with any definition of
"fair use" of their software in a court of law, after all this time it
is highly unlikely that MS would now challenge this in court, because:
1.) the length of time that they didn't challenge this would be held
against them, and, 2.) they don't possess the exclusive right to such
a use, and it would be highly unlikely that a court would rule in favor
of a corporation to have rights in someone's home to tell them how an
individual can use copyrighted material in the privacy of that home, and
that being in the general public good.
MS has always known that they really don't stand a snowballs chance in
hell of winning such a case, and that is the main reason for the
behavior modification aspects of PA. To win through marketing and
propaganda, what it knows it cannot win under the law and under existing
legal precedent. So MS, like any of us, has the right to sue for just
about anything, but that doesn't mean that they would win. If they
thought they could, then they would have done as the Music Industry has
done over file-sharing. And if you look at those suits closely, the
Music Industry is only going after those that make their music
collections available for upload to other, in other words, distributing
music to others, and the Music Industry hasn't gone after anyone that
has just downloaded music, because individuals have the right to "fairly
use" the copyrighted material that is available to them for their own
private use, but not the right to redistribute it to others.
This is how copyright and "fair use" works today. One day the corporate
copyright lobby may get Congress to change Copyright Law and remove some
of the limitations placed on Copyright Owners under Copyright Law, but
until then, we, as private non-commercial individuals have the right to
"fairly use" the copyrighted material we have access to. No copyright
owner possess the right to say otherwise. That is a fact jack, until
proven otherwise, or Copyright Law is rewritten by Congress, not by a
corporate copyright owner in a post-sale shrink-wrap license.
What would make it "illegal," is if a court ruled that it is an
infringement, which no court has, or Congress rewrites Copyright Law.
Until either happens, it is NOT an infringement and therefore perfectly
legal.
When that fairy tale happens, give me a call. That is a what if, that
is highly unlikely to ever happen, after all this time has passed. What
is more likely is for the corporate copyright lobby buying off Congress
to change Copyright Law as it exists today.
Oh, and there you go again, not acknowledging that you are snipping up
my post, and taking my words out of the whole context that they were
written.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
K
kurttrail
Bruce said:
<snip>
LOL! Section 117 is a limitation of the rights of the Copyright Owners,
not a limitation on the rights of the owner of a copy!
But Bruce is in love with the the delusions to the contrary! As a
MicroNazi, he knows the power of repeating the same nonsense over and
over again!
http://tinyurl.com/hhjj - 314 times with his previous incarnation, "to
be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws."
http://snipurl.com/d81h - 125 times with his latest incarnation, "to be
in compliance with both the EULA and U.S. copyright."
Bruce is a MicroNazi propagandist, plain and simple. Goes by the
Goebels theory that if you repeat something long enough, people will
start believing it, no matter that it is a total fabrication of reality.
http://microscum.com/bruce/
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
S
Stephen Craft
what is FUD?
kurttrail said:
K
kurttrail
Stephen said:
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
MS uses the peoples Fear of PA to get them to conform to its wishes. MS
uses the Uncertainty surrounding PA to get people to buy more copies of
software than they need. And MS uses the Doubt to try to convince
people that MS knows what is right, more so than people do.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Laurel
What a stimulating discussion! I'm not sure which side is the most
convincing. But I'm so happy to be introduced to the complexities and
ambiguities of all of this.
I do think that something someone said in this thread, about treating people
like criminals has some merit. It just doesn't "feel" right to have to by
multiple copies of a program for your laptop and your home computer and your
kid's computer. On the other hand, it also doesn't "feel" right to lend
your copy to your neighbors and uncles and aunts. My experience is that
analyzing such feelings can be revelatory. If Microsoft "licensed" its
Windows OS for "family" or "household," use (as, apparently they could do as
easily as what they're doing now), then individuals might be less likely to
fall into the "big company be damned" mindset, where they lend their disk to
all and sundry. Telling MS that the new installation is only for household
use would usually be the truth, and hence the edge would be maintained, and
normally moral people would be less likely to lie about it for their friends
and relatives' sake.
Or something like that.
convincing. But I'm so happy to be introduced to the complexities and
ambiguities of all of this.
I do think that something someone said in this thread, about treating people
like criminals has some merit. It just doesn't "feel" right to have to by
multiple copies of a program for your laptop and your home computer and your
kid's computer. On the other hand, it also doesn't "feel" right to lend
your copy to your neighbors and uncles and aunts. My experience is that
analyzing such feelings can be revelatory. If Microsoft "licensed" its
Windows OS for "family" or "household," use (as, apparently they could do as
easily as what they're doing now), then individuals might be less likely to
fall into the "big company be damned" mindset, where they lend their disk to
all and sundry. Telling MS that the new installation is only for household
use would usually be the truth, and hence the edge would be maintained, and
normally moral people would be less likely to lie about it for their friends
and relatives' sake.
Or something like that.
S
Stephen Craft
ooooooooo! ms haunted house! oooooo!
lol
lol
kurttrail said:
K
kurttrail
Laurel said:
It isn't right to share your copies with those outside of your
household. And it is clearly a violation of Copyright Law to distribute
copies of copyrighted material to others without the express permission
of the copyright owner.
However, back before everyone had access to the internet and could share
with the whole world, it wasn't much of a problem. People would make
tapes of their albums to give to their friends. People lent each other
books to read. Hell we have a gov't agency that's whole purpose is the
sharing of books, the Free Public Library. And book publishers are
still making money in spite of it.
Yes, file sharing has changed the calculus when it comes to sharing with
thousands and millions of people, and something needs to be done about
it. But that is much different than "fairly using" your copies of
copyrighted material for in your own home, or even that of the causal
infringement of sharing with a few friends and family.
Ah yes! Unfortunately that would be long-term thinking, and the
corporations of today are notoriously short-sighted, and can't see what
is in their best interests in the long run, because their stock holders
want to know how they are increasing revenues and reducing costs today,
and over the next quarter, not over the long haul. Emerging markets for
MS's OS are few and far between as compared to just six or seven years
ago, so in order to show a means for continuing revenue growth in the
short-term, MS needs to squeeze every red cent it can out of the
existing markets for its OS.
I wholeheartedly agree that would be great. I would even have less of a
problem with PA if MS did that. Tie the OS to the person and their
household, and not any specific computer. That would have been a much
better way to introduce copy-protection into its OS, and side-stepping
the natural ire of consumers over it. I wish you were running MS when
they instituted PA!
Wow! Reading your post really warmed my heart. Thank you.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
S
Sam
Apparently, _Laurel_, on 04/03/05 12:17,typed:
Yup!! You have hit the nail right on it's head. A typical family
shouldn't be compared to a corporation/company. It is quite different
making a company buy licences for each of their Windows OS installations
(and make money out of that) from allowing a family install the OS on 2
or 3 home PCs and a couple of laptops. A typical family usage of Windows
OS is not just for raking in money like a company. All this basically
means MS need to make their EULA more reasonable. And, they are going to
win people's trust and support. Profit and customer's trust and support,
what more does a company want?
Sam.
Yup!! You have hit the nail right on it's head. A typical family
shouldn't be compared to a corporation/company. It is quite different
making a company buy licences for each of their Windows OS installations
(and make money out of that) from allowing a family install the OS on 2
or 3 home PCs and a couple of laptops. A typical family usage of Windows
OS is not just for raking in money like a company. All this basically
means MS need to make their EULA more reasonable. And, they are going to
win people's trust and support. Profit and customer's trust and support,
what more does a company want?
Sam.
A
Al Smith
what is FUD?
Dat's what Bill Gates drops on ya. He is da fuddy duddy daddio of
all time.
Dat's what Bill Gates drops on ya. He is da fuddy duddy daddio of
all time.
J
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Laurel;
It would be nice if Microsoft allowed a single purchase to be installed on
multiple computers in a household.
But that is not what the EULA says.
As with any product purchased, we have a choice and if the terms are not
acceptable we do not buy.
"...where they lend their disk to all and sundry."
The same for any product.
Pick a product, any product you want.
What would happen to theft of that product if the manufacturers gave it to
everyone who wanted their product?
Is that a reason to force that business to give their product away or even
lower their price?
After all theft of that product would most likely go down.
It is easy to justify ourselves because we feel the price is high or the
terms are not as we would like.
But that does not change the agreement.
If the price does not justify upgrading multiple computers, then perhaps
some computers should not be upgraded at this time.
Ignoring an agreement is not a good option.
It would be nice if Microsoft allowed a single purchase to be installed on
multiple computers in a household.
But that is not what the EULA says.
As with any product purchased, we have a choice and if the terms are not
acceptable we do not buy.
"...where they lend their disk to all and sundry."
The same for any product.
Pick a product, any product you want.
What would happen to theft of that product if the manufacturers gave it to
everyone who wanted their product?
Is that a reason to force that business to give their product away or even
lower their price?
After all theft of that product would most likely go down.
It is easy to justify ourselves because we feel the price is high or the
terms are not as we would like.
But that does not change the agreement.
If the price does not justify upgrading multiple computers, then perhaps
some computers should not be upgraded at this time.
Ignoring an agreement is not a good option.
L
Laurel
Yeah.... well, I do frequently point out that if the folks running my
software company had only asked me this or that when they were making
decisions in the absence of info.....
Thanks for your comment!