-----Original Message-----
Next time you have to reply to this non-entity's
postings, please make sure that you don't include
his/her/its posting - some of us are trying to rid
ourselves of this nuisance.
Have Fun Trying! ROFL!
Multiple Activations
What is Product Activation?
MS Product Activation is an anti-consumer technology
designed to dupe unsuspecting customers into buying more
retail copies of MS software than they may legally need.
Which customers will be required to activate?
All of MS's customers who have to pay the highest monopoly-
protected prices for MS software: small businesses, and
individual consumers.
Is it possible to get MS to activate your PA-disabled
software on more than one computer that you own?
It is possible, but you have to know how to protect your
rights to your software, though MS has set up Product
Activation so that it makes it harder for you to exercise
your rights to the software you've purchased. The easiest
way would be to create your second installation 120 days
after you last activated your first installation of
Windows XP, as MS purges your PA (Product Activation) data
after 120 days, so activation of your second installation
should go through smoothly over the internet. If you
can't wait 120 days, then the next easiest way is to do
phone activation of your second installation. When you
talk to the PA phone rep, say you want to activate your
copy of XP. If they try to ask you any questions before
asking to exchange activation codes, tell them that the
answer would require you to divulge what you deem to be
personal information, and that you are uncomfortable with
that since giving out personal information is not a
requirement of activating Windows XP. And if they continue
to try to ask questions, ask to speak with a supervisor,
because you have called to activate your copy of XP, not
to be interrogated. More than likely the phone rep will
then start the process of activating XP, but if you do
have to talk to a supervisor, don't worry. Start off the
conversation by saying how rude it is to be interrogated
by the PA phone rep when all you want to do is activate
the software you paid for. You will be activated. MS won't
deny an activation unless you tell them that XP is
installed on more than one computer, but they have no
means to verify this info, so they must rely on the end
user (YOU) volunteering that info, and MS has no right to
compel you to give that info. All that activation tells MS
is that enough of your computer components have changed,
in the last 120 days or less, to require phone activation.
MS can not figure out whether XP is really installed on
another computer, or not, thru PA, unless you actually
tell the PA phone rep that XP is installed on more than
one computer.
What type of questions should I answer from the MS's
Product Activation phone reps?
"What is your 50 digit activation ID?" and nothing else.
Don't be rude, and wait for the phone rep to ask you some
other question first, before telling them how
uncomfortable you are answering any questions that would
require you to give them what you consider to be personal
info. [Hell, sometimes they don't even bother asking
anything!] When you call up to activate, listen to the
recording, you will hear something like, no personal
information is required to activate. Remember those words,
and use it against them, at the appropriate moment.
*UPDATE* - MS's PA phone reps have gotten a bit cagier in
dealing with people who are protecting there rights to
their copy of software and their rights to anonymity, and
have been known to hang up on people. This makes it
really important to get the name of the PA phone rep
before anything else happens, then if you are hung-up on,
you need to explain this when you call back and that you
want to talk to a supervisor. Tell the supervisor the
name of the original rep that hung-up on you. Then if the
supervisor still tries to question you, quote to the
supervisor MS's own words, "The only information required
to activate is an installation ID (and, for Office XP and
Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the name of
the country in which the product is being installed.)" -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.as
p#details
Isn't it "illegal" to install the same copy of software on
more than one computer?
Not at all. There are no laws that prevent an individual
from installing software on more than one computer that
they own, and as a matter of fact, US Copyright law limits
computer program Copyright owners by saying, it is not
infringement to make additional copies or adaptations of
computer programs. Only MS's EULA states this One
Computer BS, and they have had it in their OS EULAs since
Windows 3.1, and have yet to try to enforce by legal
means, in a civil court, as they've been too afraid that
they would lose. The whole reason that MS dreamed up PA
is to trick the ignorant consumer that their One Computer
BS is actually legally enforceable, so that MS can sucker
that consumer out of more money, even though MS has never
proven that they are entitled to it. So you can just be
another MicroSucker and believe without any proof that
MS's One Computer BS is really enforceable in a court of
law, and see more of your money go to subsidizing the XBox
& MSN, or you can wait for some real honest proof, and
protect your rights & money from the chicanery of a greedy
under-handed monopoly! Why let MS be the Judge in your
own home, when they are too afraid to bring their One
Computer EULA term before a *real* Judge? Until then,
shouldn't you be the Judge in your own home?
Aren't shrinkwrap licenses legally enforceable?
Generally, the answer to this is yes, but they can not be
unreasonable, or violate the law.
Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of
Appeals For the Seventh Circuit wrote:
"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
How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed
not sold." This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of
turning a shrinkwrap license, into a software license.
Unfortunately with a copy of retail software, it is sold,
and there is a receipt to prove it.
The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license,
just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of
that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't a
licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner!
And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy
by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at
least 2 owners of that copy of software between MS and the
guy who is sold the software.
Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at
least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of
software. Denying reality happened three times! Oh, and
one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license
too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license
said that the TV was license not sold?! People own every
single retail product they buy, and there is no legal
precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the
legal status quo at the present!
MS's post-sale EULA is not a legitimate software usage
license, that only confers limited rights to use a copy of
software, but is only a shrinkwrap license on a retail
copy of software, which is sold to the new owner of that
copy by the retailer. Congress put certain limitations on
the rights of copyright owners, in other words, they gave
owners of a copy the right to infringe in certain
circumstances. [And under certain circumstances one does
not even need to be an owner of a copy in order to legally
infringe, though none of those circumstances are
applicable to this discussion.]
What is a copy? "'Copies' are material objects, other
than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method
now known or later developed, and from which the work can
be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated,
either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
The term 'copies' includes the material object, other than
a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
Owner of Copy and owner of Copyright are two separate &
distinct things under Title 17. Copies are material
objects, or property, and Copyright is not.
"Section 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from
ownership of material object - Ownership of a copyright,
or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is
distinct from ownership of any material object in which
the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any
material object, including the copy or phonorecord in
which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey
any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object;
nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of
ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under
a copyright convey property rights in any material
object." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html
Which brings us to Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117, and
MS's post-sale attempt to rewrite it through a shrinkwrap
license. The copy of software is sold to you, thus you
are the owner of a copy, and Congress through Copyright
law gave owners of a copy of software the right to
infringe.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
What law does MS's EULA violate?
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 using MS's own definitions:
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"
What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon would
even try to argue otherwise!
MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their
One Computer nonsense in the privacy of any individual's
home in a real court of law. Until there is some
definitive legal precedent that clears this all up, one
way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for
themselves what they can and can not do with the copy of
retail software that was legally SOLD to them by the
previous owner of that software?!
Isn't the sole purpose of Copyright law to protect
Copyright owners rights, like MS?
No. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote:
"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
MS has $49 billion in cash reserves as of July 2003! In
spite of fact that almost all of their non-software
businesses are losing money. On top of all the legal
settlements for Anti-trust abuse, and copyright & patent
infringement! Not to mention the losses due to the
organized crime software piracy rings operating in many
Asian countries that have weak or nearly non-existent
copyright laws and/or enforcement. Can anyone one argue,
with a straight face, that MS hasn't gotten a "fair
return" for the creative labor of it's employees? So is
there any reasonable argument that MS's One Computer EULA
term in keeping with the 'primary object" of Copyright
which lies "in the general benefits derived by the public
from the labors of authors?"
--
Kisses!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
