XP Home License

[Bruce Chambers]

Thanks for all your comments I think I'll leave things as they are. Can
anyone explain what "OEM" stands for and what it means.

The acronym "OEM" represents "Original Equipment Manufacturer." When
used in the context of software licensing, it refers to software that's
intended to be sold pre-installed on a computer, or in conjunction with
a piece of computer hardware.


--

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

You do yourself a big disservice by demonstrating your ignorance by
calling what the OP wants to do stealing.

Not as big a disservice as you do to yourself by pretending it's any else.


--

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Kurt, has it ever been through the courts that these EULAs are even
binding?

Yes, it has.

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

That's from ProCD v. Ziedenberg.


--

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

 

[Alias]

You do yourself a big disservice by demonstrating your ignorance by
calling what the OP wants to do stealing.

Not as big a disservice as you do to yourself by pretending it's any [thing]
else.

Stealing, petty theft or grand theft: criminal offense
Breaching an EULA on a license you have paid for: civil offense.

Amount of these civil offenses taken to court by Microsoft: 0

Can you tell us all why?

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Commercial use terms are binding as long as they don't violate law or
are unconscionable. See ProCD v. Zeidenberg -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Precisely where, in the above decision, does the court limit the writ
of the judgment to solely commercial uses?

But when it comes to the individual's right to fairly use software they
have purchased and software copyright owners trying to EULA away "Fair
Use," has yet to have any legal precedent. So until a software
copyright owner sues an individual for "Fair Use" of software and WINS,
any individual can may follow their own interpretation of "fair use,"
and ignore the FUD of the copyright owner.

Kurt, you really need to stop using that over-worn "fair use" red
herring. You know perfectly well that "Fair Use," as defined by
copyright law, doesn't apply. (It isn't even relevant, in this
particular discussion.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Release date: 2004-04-30

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just exactly where, in the above text, does it state that one is
free to renege on a legally binding contract?


--

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

 

[Alias]

The acronym "OEM" represents "Original Equipment Manufacturer."
When used in the context of software licensing, it refers to software
that's intended to be sold pre-installed on a computer, or in
conjunction with a piece of computer hardware.

Unless you live in a country that does not have either the pre-installed
or the piece of computer hardware requirement trip.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Yes, it has.

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

That's from ProCD v. Ziedenberg.

I believe Frank was referring to the MS EULAs, none of which have been
taken to court. Being as MS EULAs are "unconscionable", that's probably
the reason MS hasn't seen fit to take one single person to court over
breaching an EULA.

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I believe Frank was referring to the MS EULAs,

Why would you believe that? His post didn't specify any compies, but
askied about EULAs in general.

none of which have been
taken to court. Being as MS EULAs are "unconscionable",

You've just contradicted yourself. If, as you admit, no Microsoft
EULAs have yet been challenged in court, how could one possibly have
been found to be unconscionable?

Can't you mindlessly anti-Microsoft hacks come up with any better
arguments that crudely crafted (and self defeating) attempts at
mis-direction?



--

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Unless you live in a country that does not have either the pre-installed
or the piece of computer hardware requirement trip.

Alias

True, there are some countries in the world that do not recognize or
respect the intellectual property of other countrys' citizens.


--

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

 

[Jone Doe]

The acronym "OEM" represents "Original Equipment Manufacturer." When

Unless you live in a country that does not have either the pre-installed
or the piece of computer hardware requirement trip.

Alias

Actually if I remember correctly the rules have now changed, and you can get
OEM only in a computer, not with "a piece of computer hardware."

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Actually if I remember correctly the rules have now changed, and you can get
OEM only in a computer, not with "a piece of computer hardware."

I haven't seen anything to that effect, yet. Do you have a link or
reference I could look at?


--

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

 

[kurttrail]

Actually if I remember correctly the rules have now changed, and you
can get OEM only in a computer, not with "a piece of computer
hardware."

Wrong. Just go to New Egg, or Walmart. There in no longer any hardware
requirement when purchasing OEM software.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[kurttrail]

Not as big a disservice as you do to yourself by pretending it's any
else.

Keep showing that you are the one is pretending its a crime, Bruce.
Anyone that is intelligent enough to know the law can see how foolish
you are being.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

Keep showing that you are the one is pretending its a crime, Bruce.

I don't believe I ever used the word "crime," now did I? I described
the action, only. Period.

Anyone that is intelligent enough to know the law can see how foolish
you are being.

There are lots of things that are "legal," but still wrong. Just as
there are a lot of perfectly harmless activities that the theocrats
currently running the country would love to make illegal.


--

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

 

[kurttrail]

Precisely where, in the above decision, does the court limit the writ
of the judgment to solely commercial uses?

Because that was the use that was involved in the case.

Zeidenberg was repackaging an selling ProCD material. A commercial use.
That wouldn't be a precedent if he was making copies for his own
personal use of copyright material, as the ProCD material wasn't
copyrightable to begin with.

Kurt, you really need to stop using that over-worn "fair use" red
herring. You know perfectly well that "Fair Use," as defined by
copyright law, doesn't apply. (It isn't even relevant, in this
particular discussion.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Release date: 2004-04-30

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include—


(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Private non-commercial individual use.

"In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being
a primary indicator of fair use." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Of course public commercial use is sometimes legally allowable under
"fair use." Private non-commercial use in the home would be the most
flexible form of "fair use."

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

"In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material
copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial product.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
entire movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an
entire copyrighted work as a "fair use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.

Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by the
indivdiual, thereby the copyright owner has already gotten a "fair
return" for the creative labor of the author(s).

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.

Didn't agree to contract at the time of sale the the doctrine of First
Sale was in effect at the time of purchase.

"Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and
"licenses"(which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale)
is a subject for another day." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

And that day has yet to come, so until then:

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

So until MS sues me, I have every right to my interpretation. Put that
in your pipe and smoke it, Bruce.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[kurttrail]

Why would you believe that? His post didn't specify any compies, but
askied about EULAs in general.




You've just contradicted yourself. If, as you admit, no Microsoft
EULAs have yet been challenged in court, how could one possibly have
been found to be unconscionable?

Can't you mindlessly anti-Microsoft hacks come up with any better
arguments that crudely crafted (and self defeating) attempts at
mis-direction?

This is the guy that calls a breech of contract the criminal offense of
stealing!

Hell, not even all breeches of contract are even civil offenses!

You should be careful throwing stones in your glass house, Bruce.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[kurttrail]

I don't believe I ever used the word "crime," now did I? I described
the action, only. Period.

Stealing is a criminal offense. You words show you for a fool.

There are lots of things that are "legal," but still wrong.

LOL! Like practicing "fair use?"

Just as
there are a lot of perfectly harmless activities that the theocrats
currently running the country would love to make illegal.

ROFL! And you talk about me playing with strawmen!

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Alias]

True, there are some countries in the world that do not recognize or
respect the intellectual property of other countrys' citizens.

How is pulling cold hard cash out of my pocket and paying for a generic
OEM XP not respecting intellectual property?

Alias

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Stealing is a criminal offense. You words show you for a fool.

I have to interject here - only because I first thought Bruce to be
over-stepping saying that he never used the word "crime". That being pretty
accurate in the purest sense - but he had used the word "steal" and I
thought to myself, "That implies criminal activity - certainly." -- but I
took it upon myself to look up the word "steal" -> just out of curiosity.

While it can imply criminal activity in the mind of many - it is not defined
as "criminal" in - for example - the Merriam-Webster Online does not mention
criminality any where in the definition. Unfair, dishonest, wrongfully,
without permission, etc... Even unjust - but never a mention of criminal
activity.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/steal

While it surprised me, it did make sense. While the word certainly could be
used to describe a criminal act - it is more a description of a moral
action, and not "criminal" until someone makes it (or takes it) as such.
Consider children taking something from another child - unless someone comes
in and presents a rule that makes it a crime - all that happened is that
something was taken from someone else without their consent. Is that
against the written laws? Yes. Is it criminal - only if taken to that
level. One can steal material goods, looks, hearts of others, bases and
other such things - but they are not criminal - unless someone else
interjects their written law system into the matter.

Would it be sensible to think most people would interject such law systems
into a discussion? Yeah - it is. However - in the pure sense of the word
steal - by definition - is not a criminal act.

In other words - one persons interpretation of stealing and the context in
which it was used (which may not be what was interpreted by people other
than those who presented the idea) - like many other things, may or may not
be criminal.

If I were to steal a glance in your direction - I suppose you could sue me
for it - but you would need to seek professional help at the same time
(unless I was stalking you - but then you are not suing me for stealing that
glance.) I can steal third base in a baseball game - but I am pretty sure
no one has ever been taken to prison for that (some have been arrested for
the drug use that gave them the ability to do that, however. *grin*)

While arguable that Bruce was implying criminal activity when he presented
this sentence:

"And you plan to start off my teaching an 8-year-old that it's OK to steal?"

It could be interpreted that Bruce was just stating his own moral belief
that any act of "taking surreptitiously or without permission " is wrongful.
As he did not go further and express any punishment for such act - it very
well could be that was the case - and not "criminal" in that
interpretation..

Do I believe that is what Bruce meant? Not meaning that it was a criminal
act?
*shrug* It's plausible - but I do think it was said in the heat of the
moment and the true intention is only known to Bruce.

I know I took it to mean "criminal act" when I first read it. That is the
way I interpreted the word "steal" at that time.

 

[Alias]

Actually if I remember correctly the rules have now changed, and you can get
OEM only in a computer, not with "a piece of computer hardware."

Not where I live.

Or at Walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=3954

Or Newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102062

Alias