Announcing the MS-MVP HOS Awardees for 2005!

[Dan]

Bye

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
Send a postcard. Seeya.

 

[kurttrail]

Who knows? (???)

Obviously you don't know why.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Anthony wrote:
lol those mvp's must be burnnning up over this



Why? We've grown quite used to the troll's having to resort to
juvenile name-calling for quite some time. (He's long ago proven
he's incapable of carrying on a rational discussion.) We just
consider the source.

LOL! When I respond to you rationally, you don't reply, you only
seem to respond to the name-calling. Hell, it was the name-calling
that got me out of your killfile after a couple of years in it.

Here is a very rational one you left unanswered recently:


Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117: Limitation on Exclusive Rights:
Computer Programs

In Copyright law "Exclusive Rights" mean the copyright owners rights.
The main gist of Section 117 is to LIMIT the "Exclusive Rights" of
the copyright owner!

Then Section 117 (a) is titled:

"Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy."

Adaptation - the process or state of changing to fit new
circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change.

And that's pretty much describes the act of installation software
from a CD to a computer. And Do I really have to define what
ADDITIONAL means?!

For you, I guess I do, that would mean additional to the original
adaptation or as I say installation.

Section 117 (a) continues:

"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"

It is "NOT AN INFRINGEMENT" to make "ANOTHER COPY OR ADAPTATION."
Can you say it means anything about only one copy?

Now Section 117 gives 2 different condition when it making "another
copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement" on the exclusive rights
of the Computer Program Copyright Owner.

These conditions are stated as "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)", not (1)
AND (2). Do you know and understand the difference between the two
statements?

(1) AND (2) means that both conditions must be met in order that
making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement."

"(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)" means that only one of these conditions
need to be met in order that making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation"
is "not an infringement."

Do you understand so far?

Condition (2) is fairly simple to understand, as it says you can make
backups, and has little bearing on using "ANOTHER copy or
adaptation." Do you agree?

Condition (1) is a little more complicated so first I'll quote it
first in conjuction with part (a), and then break it down into what
I believe it means.

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

See all I did was removed "(a)" and "(1)" and the "or" at the end.

". . . . that such a new copy or adaptation . . . ."

"New" refers to the "additional" or "another copy or adaptation"
from part (a).

". . . . is created as an essential step . . . ."

In my interpretation I say " is made as a necessary step"

created - to produce something as a result, or make something happen

essential - necessary: of the highest importance for achieving
something

See so far how my "interpretation is going, using the definitions to
put the law into laymans terms?

". . . . in the utilization of the computer program . . . ."

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . in making use of the software . . . ."

Are you willing to give me that "computer program" means "software?"

utilization - make use of something: to make use of or find a
practical use for something.

So far I'm twisting nothing, am I?

". . . . in conjunction with . . . . "

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . together with . . . ."

in conjunction with - together with or combined with something

Now we come to the hard part, the difference between "a" and "the"

the - CORE MEANING: an adjective, the definite article, used before
somebody or something that has already been mentioned or identified,
or something that is understood by both the speaker and hearer, as
distinct from "a" or "an"


a - CORE MEANING: the indefinite article, used before a singular
countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known
or specified, in contrast with "the," referring to somebody or
something known to the listener.

". . . . a machine . . . ."

Had the writers of this law had the intention that this "new copy or
adaptation" could only be used "in conjunction with" the computer
with the original adaption, then they would have written "THE
machince," but they didn't. They purposefully wrote "a machine," a
thing not previously known or specified.

So that's where I get my "interpretation" of "a machine" meaning:

". . . . a previously unknown computer . . . ."

Then part (1) ends with:

". . . . and that it is used in no other manner . . . ."

Which I use word for word in my interpretation.

So let's put it all together, and put the law and my
"interpretation" up side by side.

First the law again:

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

Now my "interpretation:"

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

So you see, Section 117 (a) says absolutely nothing about using
software on only one computer, or protecting the exclusive rights of
the copyright owner over that of the owner of a copy of software.
Section 117 (a) is a "Limitations on [the] exclusive rights" of the
copyright owner, and is a protection for "the owner of a copy of a
computer program"
from being sued by the copyright owner for "infringement" for making
"another copy or adaptation" for use on a non-specific computer, and
says ABSOLUTELY nothing about limiting all adaptations to the same
computer.


Now let's see you describe, in as minute detail as I have, how
Section 117 limits software to being installed on only one computer
at any given time, Bruce. My guess is that you either won't reply,
or you will try to blow it off in a sentence or two that will
distort the meaning of what is actually written in Section 117.

And as anyone, with an open mind can see, I distort nothing in my
interpretation of Section 117, and I have a reasonable explanation
for everything I believe it means.

Has 1984 arrived in your mind, Kurt? (I am sure you must have read
1984 by George Orwell)

What does 1984 have anything to do with Bruce's failure to repond to
this post?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Huh? I do what God tells me and will gladly don the armor of God and
face the deepest pit in Hell if God commands it. :>

He does! And you didn't answer his call!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Dan]

LOL

: Dan wrote:
: > Who knows? (???)
: >
:
: Obviously you don't know why.
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[Dan]

Whatever, man :>

: Dan wrote:
:
: > message : >> Dan wrote:
: >>> Born-again Christian that is what. :>
: >>
: >> That does explain a lot. MS is as much faith-based, as Christianity.
: >>
: >> Reason gets thrown out the door, when faith flies innuendo! ;-)
: >>
: > Huh? I do what God tells me and will gladly don the armor of God and
: > face the deepest pit in Hell if God commands it. :>
: >
:
: He does! And you didn't answer his call!
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[Dan]

You know the government conspiracy and spying on everyone. There are cameras
everywhere and most can be hacked into by hackers and view you.

: Dan wrote:
: > message : >> Bruce Chambers wrote:
: >>> Anthony wrote:
: >>>> lol those mvp's must be burnnning up over this
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> Why? We've grown quite used to the troll's having to resort to
: >>> juvenile name-calling for quite some time. (He's long ago proven
: >>> he's incapable of carrying on a rational discussion.) We just
: >>> consider the source.
: >>
: >> LOL! When I respond to you rationally, you don't reply, you only
: >> seem to respond to the name-calling. Hell, it was the name-calling
: >> that got me out of your killfile after a couple of years in it.
: >>
: >> Here is a very rational one you left unanswered recently:
: >>
: >>
: >> Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117: Limitation on Exclusive Rights:
: >> Computer Programs
: >>
: >> In Copyright law "Exclusive Rights" mean the copyright owners rights.
: >> The main gist of Section 117 is to LIMIT the "Exclusive Rights" of
: >> the copyright owner!
: >>
: >> Then Section 117 (a) is titled:
: >>
: >> "Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy."
: >>
: >> Adaptation - the process or state of changing to fit new
: >> circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change.
: >>
: >> And that's pretty much describes the act of installation software
: >> from a CD to a computer. And Do I really have to define what
: >> ADDITIONAL means?!
: >>
: >> For you, I guess I do, that would mean additional to the original
: >> adaptation or as I say installation.
: >>
: >> Section 117 (a) continues:
: >>
: >> "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"
: >>
: >> It is "NOT AN INFRINGEMENT" to make "ANOTHER COPY OR ADAPTATION."
: >> Can you say it means anything about only one copy?
: >>
: >> Now Section 117 gives 2 different condition when it making "another
: >> copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement" on the exclusive rights
: >> of the Computer Program Copyright Owner.
: >>
: >> These conditions are stated as "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)", not (1)
: >> AND (2). Do you know and understand the difference between the two
: >> statements?
: >>
: >> (1) AND (2) means that both conditions must be met in order that
: >> making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement."
: >>
: >> "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)" means that only one of these conditions
: >> need to be met in order that making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation"
: >> is "not an infringement."
: >>
: >> Do you understand so far?
: >>
: >> Condition (2) is fairly simple to understand, as it says you can make
: >> backups, and has little bearing on using "ANOTHER copy or
: >> adaptation." Do you agree?
: >>
: >> Condition (1) is a little more complicated so first I'll quote it
: >> first in conjuction with part (a), and then break it down into what
: >> I believe it means.
: >>
: >> ". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."
: >>
: >> See all I did was removed "(a)" and "(1)" and the "or" at the end.
: >>
: >> ". . . . that such a new copy or adaptation . . . ."
: >>
: >> "New" refers to the "additional" or "another copy or adaptation"
: >> from part (a).
: >>
: >> ". . . . is created as an essential step . . . ."
: >>
: >> In my interpretation I say " is made as a necessary step"
: >>
: >> created - to produce something as a result, or make something happen
: >>
: >> essential - necessary: of the highest importance for achieving
: >> something
: >>
: >> See so far how my "interpretation is going, using the definitions to
: >> put the law into laymans terms?
: >>
: >> ". . . . in the utilization of the computer program . . . ."
: >>
: >> or as I say in my "interpretation:"
: >>
: >> ". . . . in making use of the software . . . ."
: >>
: >> Are you willing to give me that "computer program" means "software?"
: >>
: >> utilization - make use of something: to make use of or find a
: >> practical use for something.
: >>
: >> So far I'm twisting nothing, am I?
: >>
: >> ". . . . in conjunction with . . . . "
: >>
: >> or as I say in my "interpretation:"
: >>
: >> ". . . . together with . . . ."
: >>
: >> in conjunction with - together with or combined with something
: >>
: >> Now we come to the hard part, the difference between "a" and "the"
: >>
: >> the - CORE MEANING: an adjective, the definite article, used before
: >> somebody or something that has already been mentioned or identified,
: >> or something that is understood by both the speaker and hearer, as
: >> distinct from "a" or "an"
: >>
: >>
: >> a - CORE MEANING: the indefinite article, used before a singular
: >> countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known
: >> or specified, in contrast with "the," referring to somebody or
: >> something known to the listener.
: >>
: >> ". . . . a machine . . . ."
: >>
: >> Had the writers of this law had the intention that this "new copy or
: >> adaptation" could only be used "in conjunction with" the computer
: >> with the original adaption, then they would have written "THE
: >> machince," but they didn't. They purposefully wrote "a machine," a
: >> thing not previously known or specified.
: >>
: >> So that's where I get my "interpretation" of "a machine" meaning:
: >>
: >> ". . . . a previously unknown computer . . . ."
: >>
: >> Then part (1) ends with:
: >>
: >> ". . . . and that it is used in no other manner . . . ."
: >>
: >> Which I use word for word in my interpretation.
: >>
: >> So let's put it all together, and put the law and my
: >> "interpretation" up side by side.
: >>
: >> First the law again:
: >>
: >> ". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."
: >>
: >> Now my "interpretation:"
: >>
: >> ". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."
: >>
: >> So you see, Section 117 (a) says absolutely nothing about using
: >> software on only one computer, or protecting the exclusive rights of
: >> the copyright owner over that of the owner of a copy of software.
: >> Section 117 (a) is a "Limitations on [the] exclusive rights" of the
: >> copyright owner, and is a protection for "the owner of a copy of a
: >> computer program"
: >> from being sued by the copyright owner for "infringement" for making
: >> "another copy or adaptation" for use on a non-specific computer, and
: >> says ABSOLUTELY nothing about limiting all adaptations to the same
: >> computer.
: >>
: >>
: >> Now let's see you describe, in as minute detail as I have, how
: >> Section 117 limits software to being installed on only one computer
: >> at any given time, Bruce. My guess is that you either won't reply,
: >> or you will try to blow it off in a sentence or two that will
: >> distort the meaning of what is actually written in Section 117.
: >>
: >> And as anyone, with an open mind can see, I distort nothing in my
: >> interpretation of Section 117, and I have a reasonable explanation
: >> for everything I believe it means.
: >>
: > Has 1984 arrived in your mind, Kurt? (I am sure you must have read
: > 1984 by George Orwell)
: >
:
: What does 1984 have anything to do with Bruce's failure to repond to
: this post?
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[kurttrail]

message Bruce Chambers wrote:
Anthony wrote:
lol those mvp's must be burnnning up over this



Why? We've grown quite used to the troll's having to resort to
juvenile name-calling for quite some time. (He's long ago proven
he's incapable of carrying on a rational discussion.) We just
consider the source.

LOL! When I respond to you rationally, you don't reply, you only
seem to respond to the name-calling. Hell, it was the name-calling
that got me out of your killfile after a couple of years in it.

Here is a very rational one you left unanswered recently:


Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117: Limitation on Exclusive Rights:
Computer Programs

In Copyright law "Exclusive Rights" mean the copyright owners
rights. The main gist of Section 117 is to LIMIT the "Exclusive
Rights" of the copyright owner!

Then Section 117 (a) is titled:

"Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy."

Adaptation - the process or state of changing to fit new
circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change.

And that's pretty much describes the act of installation software
from a CD to a computer. And Do I really have to define what
ADDITIONAL means?!

For you, I guess I do, that would mean additional to the original
adaptation or as I say installation.

Section 117 (a) continues:

"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"

It is "NOT AN INFRINGEMENT" to make "ANOTHER COPY OR ADAPTATION."
Can you say it means anything about only one copy?

Now Section 117 gives 2 different condition when it making "another
copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement" on the exclusive
rights of the Computer Program Copyright Owner.

These conditions are stated as "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)", not
(1) AND (2). Do you know and understand the difference between
the two statements?

(1) AND (2) means that both conditions must be met in order that
making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement."

"(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)" means that only one of these
conditions need to be met in order that making an "ANOTHER copy or
adaptation" is "not an infringement."

Do you understand so far?

Condition (2) is fairly simple to understand, as it says you can
make backups, and has little bearing on using "ANOTHER copy or
adaptation." Do you agree?

Condition (1) is a little more complicated so first I'll quote it
first in conjuction with part (a), and then break it down into what
I believe it means.

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

See all I did was removed "(a)" and "(1)" and the "or" at the end.

". . . . that such a new copy or adaptation . . . ."

"New" refers to the "additional" or "another copy or adaptation"
from part (a).

". . . . is created as an essential step . . . ."

In my interpretation I say " is made as a necessary step"

created - to produce something as a result, or make something
happen

essential - necessary: of the highest importance for achieving
something

See so far how my "interpretation is going, using the definitions
to put the law into laymans terms?

". . . . in the utilization of the computer program . . . ."

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . in making use of the software . . . ."

Are you willing to give me that "computer program" means
"software?"

utilization - make use of something: to make use of or find a
practical use for something.

So far I'm twisting nothing, am I?

". . . . in conjunction with . . . . "

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . together with . . . ."

in conjunction with - together with or combined with something

Now we come to the hard part, the difference between "a" and "the"

the - CORE MEANING: an adjective, the definite article, used before
somebody or something that has already been mentioned or
identified, or something that is understood by both the speaker
and hearer, as distinct from "a" or "an"


a - CORE MEANING: the indefinite article, used before a singular
countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known
or specified, in contrast with "the," referring to somebody or
something known to the listener.

". . . . a machine . . . ."

Had the writers of this law had the intention that this "new copy
or adaptation" could only be used "in conjunction with" the
computer with the original adaption, then they would have written
"THE machince," but they didn't. They purposefully wrote "a
machine," a thing not previously known or specified.

So that's where I get my "interpretation" of "a machine" meaning:

". . . . a previously unknown computer . . . ."

Then part (1) ends with:

". . . . and that it is used in no other manner . . . ."

Which I use word for word in my interpretation.

So let's put it all together, and put the law and my
"interpretation" up side by side.

First the law again:

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

Now my "interpretation:"

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

So you see, Section 117 (a) says absolutely nothing about using
software on only one computer, or protecting the exclusive rights
of the copyright owner over that of the owner of a copy of
software. Section 117 (a) is a "Limitations on [the] exclusive
rights" of the copyright owner, and is a protection for "the owner
of a copy of a computer program"
from being sued by the copyright owner for "infringement" for
making "another copy or adaptation" for use on a non-specific
computer, and says ABSOLUTELY nothing about limiting all
adaptations to the same computer.


Now let's see you describe, in as minute detail as I have, how
Section 117 limits software to being installed on only one computer
at any given time, Bruce. My guess is that you either won't reply,
or you will try to blow it off in a sentence or two that will
distort the meaning of what is actually written in Section 117.

And as anyone, with an open mind can see, I distort nothing in my
interpretation of Section 117, and I have a reasonable explanation
for everything I believe it means.

Has 1984 arrived in your mind, Kurt? (I am sure you must have read
1984 by George Orwell)

What does 1984 have anything to do with Bruce's failure to repond to
this post?

You know the government conspiracy and spying on everyone. There are
cameras everywhere and most can be hacked into by hackers and view
you.

Again, "What does [this] have anything to do with Bruce's failure to
repond?"

What does explaining a law, in simpler terms have anything to do with
gov't conspiracies?

Do you have a tin foil hat on?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Whatever, man :>

That's right! It's only YOUR eternal soul! ROFL!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

LOL

Obviously you don't have much of a sense of humor either.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Dan]

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. The truth is in the eye of the beholder
as it is written and so it shall be done. :>

: Dan wrote:
:
: > message : >> Dan wrote:
: >>> Who knows? (???)
: >>>
: >>
: >> Obviously you don't know why.
: >>
: > LOL
:
: Obviously you don't have much of a sense of humor either.
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[Dan]

And yours, too. LOL :>

: Dan wrote:
:
: > message : >> Dan wrote:
: >>
: >>> message : >>>> Dan wrote:
: >>>>> Born-again Christian that is what. :>
: >>>>
: >>>> That does explain a lot. MS is as much faith-based, as
: >>>> Christianity.
: >>>>
: >>>> Reason gets thrown out the door, when faith flies innuendo! ;-)
: >>>>
: >>> Huh? I do what God tells me and will gladly don the armor of God
: >>> and face the deepest pit in Hell if God commands it. :>
: >>>
: >>
: >> He does! And you didn't answer his call!
: >>
: > Whatever, man :>
: >
:
: That's right! It's only YOUR eternal soul! ROFL!
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[Dan]

Better ask, PCR from the 98 general newsgroup. :>

: Dan wrote:
:
: > message : >> Dan wrote:
: >>> message : >>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
: >>>>> Anthony wrote:
: >>>>>> lol those mvp's must be burnnning up over this
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Why? We've grown quite used to the troll's having to resort to
: >>>>> juvenile name-calling for quite some time. (He's long ago proven
: >>>>> he's incapable of carrying on a rational discussion.) We just
: >>>>> consider the source.
: >>>>
: >>>> LOL! When I respond to you rationally, you don't reply, you only
: >>>> seem to respond to the name-calling. Hell, it was the name-calling
: >>>> that got me out of your killfile after a couple of years in it.
: >>>>
: >>>> Here is a very rational one you left unanswered recently:
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117: Limitation on Exclusive Rights:
: >>>> Computer Programs
: >>>>
: >>>> In Copyright law "Exclusive Rights" mean the copyright owners
: >>>> rights. The main gist of Section 117 is to LIMIT the "Exclusive
: >>>> Rights" of the copyright owner!
: >>>>
: >>>> Then Section 117 (a) is titled:
: >>>>
: >>>> "Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy."
: >>>>
: >>>> Adaptation - the process or state of changing to fit new
: >>>> circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change.
: >>>>
: >>>> And that's pretty much describes the act of installation software
: >>>> from a CD to a computer. And Do I really have to define what
: >>>> ADDITIONAL means?!
: >>>>
: >>>> For you, I guess I do, that would mean additional to the original
: >>>> adaptation or as I say installation.
: >>>>
: >>>> Section 117 (a) continues:
: >>>>
: >>>> "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"
: >>>>
: >>>> It is "NOT AN INFRINGEMENT" to make "ANOTHER COPY OR ADAPTATION."
: >>>> Can you say it means anything about only one copy?
: >>>>
: >>>> Now Section 117 gives 2 different condition when it making "another
: >>>> copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement" on the exclusive
: >>>> rights of the Computer Program Copyright Owner.
: >>>>
: >>>> These conditions are stated as "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)", not
: >>>> (1) AND (2). Do you know and understand the difference between
: >>>> the two statements?
: >>>>
: >>>> (1) AND (2) means that both conditions must be met in order that
: >>>> making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement."
: >>>>
: >>>> "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)" means that only one of these
: >>>> conditions need to be met in order that making an "ANOTHER copy or
: >>>> adaptation" is "not an infringement."
: >>>>
: >>>> Do you understand so far?
: >>>>
: >>>> Condition (2) is fairly simple to understand, as it says you can
: >>>> make backups, and has little bearing on using "ANOTHER copy or
: >>>> adaptation." Do you agree?
: >>>>
: >>>> Condition (1) is a little more complicated so first I'll quote it
: >>>> first in conjuction with part (a), and then break it down into what
: >>>> I believe it means.
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> See all I did was removed "(a)" and "(1)" and the "or" at the end.
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . that such a new copy or adaptation . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> "New" refers to the "additional" or "another copy or adaptation"
: >>>> from part (a).
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . is created as an essential step . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> In my interpretation I say " is made as a necessary step"
: >>>>
: >>>> created - to produce something as a result, or make something
: >>>> happen
: >>>>
: >>>> essential - necessary: of the highest importance for achieving
: >>>> something
: >>>>
: >>>> See so far how my "interpretation is going, using the definitions
: >>>> to put the law into laymans terms?
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . in the utilization of the computer program . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> or as I say in my "interpretation:"
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . in making use of the software . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> Are you willing to give me that "computer program" means
: >>>> "software?"
: >>>>
: >>>> utilization - make use of something: to make use of or find a
: >>>> practical use for something.
: >>>>
: >>>> So far I'm twisting nothing, am I?
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . in conjunction with . . . . "
: >>>>
: >>>> or as I say in my "interpretation:"
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . together with . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> in conjunction with - together with or combined with something
: >>>>
: >>>> Now we come to the hard part, the difference between "a" and "the"
: >>>>
: >>>> the - CORE MEANING: an adjective, the definite article, used before
: >>>> somebody or something that has already been mentioned or
: >>>> identified, or something that is understood by both the speaker
: >>>> and hearer, as distinct from "a" or "an"
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> a - CORE MEANING: the indefinite article, used before a singular
: >>>> countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously known
: >>>> or specified, in contrast with "the," referring to somebody or
: >>>> something known to the listener.
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . a machine . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> Had the writers of this law had the intention that this "new copy
: >>>> or adaptation" could only be used "in conjunction with" the
: >>>> computer with the original adaption, then they would have written
: >>>> "THE machince," but they didn't. They purposefully wrote "a
: >>>> machine," a thing not previously known or specified.
: >>>>
: >>>> So that's where I get my "interpretation" of "a machine" meaning:
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . a previously unknown computer . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> Then part (1) ends with:
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . and that it is used in no other manner . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> Which I use word for word in my interpretation.
: >>>>
: >>>> So let's put it all together, and put the law and my
: >>>> "interpretation" up side by side.
: >>>>
: >>>> First the law again:
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> Now my "interpretation:"
: >>>>
: >>>> ". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."
: >>>>
: >>>> So you see, Section 117 (a) says absolutely nothing about using
: >>>> software on only one computer, or protecting the exclusive rights
: >>>> of the copyright owner over that of the owner of a copy of
: >>>> software. Section 117 (a) is a "Limitations on [the] exclusive
: >>>> rights" of the copyright owner, and is a protection for "the owner
: >>>> of a copy of a computer program"
: >>>> from being sued by the copyright owner for "infringement" for
: >>>> making "another copy or adaptation" for use on a non-specific
: >>>> computer, and says ABSOLUTELY nothing about limiting all
: >>>> adaptations to the same computer.
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> Now let's see you describe, in as minute detail as I have, how
: >>>> Section 117 limits software to being installed on only one computer
: >>>> at any given time, Bruce. My guess is that you either won't reply,
: >>>> or you will try to blow it off in a sentence or two that will
: >>>> distort the meaning of what is actually written in Section 117.
: >>>>
: >>>> And as anyone, with an open mind can see, I distort nothing in my
: >>>> interpretation of Section 117, and I have a reasonable explanation
: >>>> for everything I believe it means.
: >>>>
: >>> Has 1984 arrived in your mind, Kurt? (I am sure you must have read
: >>> 1984 by George Orwell)
: >>>
: >>
: >> What does 1984 have anything to do with Bruce's failure to repond to
: >> this post?
: >>
: > You know the government conspiracy and spying on everyone. There are
: > cameras everywhere and most can be hacked into by hackers and view
: > you.
:
: Again, "What does [this] have anything to do with Bruce's failure to
: repond?"
:
: What does explaining a law, in simpler terms have anything to do with
: gov't conspiracies?
:
: Do you have a tin foil hat on?
:
: --
: Peace!
: Kurt
: Self-anointed Moderator
: microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
: http://microscum.com
: "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
: "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
:
:

 

[kurttrail]

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. The truth is in the eye of the
beholder as it is written and so it shall be done. :>

"You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

message Dan wrote:
message Bruce Chambers wrote:
Anthony wrote:
lol those mvp's must be burnnning up over this



Why? We've grown quite used to the troll's having to resort to
juvenile name-calling for quite some time. (He's long ago
proven he's incapable of carrying on a rational discussion.) We
just consider the source.

LOL! When I respond to you rationally, you don't reply, you only
seem to respond to the name-calling. Hell, it was the
name-calling that got me out of your killfile after a couple of
years in it.

Here is a very rational one you left unanswered recently:


Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117: Limitation on Exclusive Rights:
Computer Programs

In Copyright law "Exclusive Rights" mean the copyright owners
rights. The main gist of Section 117 is to LIMIT the "Exclusive
Rights" of the copyright owner!

Then Section 117 (a) is titled:

"Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy."

Adaptation - the process or state of changing to fit new
circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change.

And that's pretty much describes the act of installation software
from a CD to a computer. And Do I really have to define what
ADDITIONAL means?!

For you, I guess I do, that would mean additional to the original
adaptation or as I say installation.

Section 117 (a) continues:

"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"

It is "NOT AN INFRINGEMENT" to make "ANOTHER COPY OR ADAPTATION."
Can you say it means anything about only one copy?

Now Section 117 gives 2 different condition when it making
"another copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement" on the
exclusive rights of the Computer Program Copyright Owner.

These conditions are stated as "(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)", not
(1) AND (2). Do you know and understand the difference between
the two statements?

(1) AND (2) means that both conditions must be met in order that
making an "ANOTHER copy or adaptation" is "not an infringement."

"(1) . . . . OR . . . . (2)" means that only one of these
conditions need to be met in order that making an "ANOTHER copy
or adaptation" is "not an infringement."

Do you understand so far?

Condition (2) is fairly simple to understand, as it says you can
make backups, and has little bearing on using "ANOTHER copy or
adaptation." Do you agree?

Condition (1) is a little more complicated so first I'll quote it
first in conjuction with part (a), and then break it down into
what I believe it means.

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

See all I did was removed "(a)" and "(1)" and the "or" at the
end.

". . . . that such a new copy or adaptation . . . ."

"New" refers to the "additional" or "another copy or adaptation"
from part (a).

". . . . is created as an essential step . . . ."

In my interpretation I say " is made as a necessary step"

created - to produce something as a result, or make something
happen

essential - necessary: of the highest importance for achieving
something

See so far how my "interpretation is going, using the definitions
to put the law into laymans terms?

". . . . in the utilization of the computer program . . . ."

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . in making use of the software . . . ."

Are you willing to give me that "computer program" means
"software?"

utilization - make use of something: to make use of or find a
practical use for something.

So far I'm twisting nothing, am I?

". . . . in conjunction with . . . . "

or as I say in my "interpretation:"

". . . . together with . . . ."

in conjunction with - together with or combined with something

Now we come to the hard part, the difference between "a" and
"the"

the - CORE MEANING: an adjective, the definite article, used
before somebody or something that has already been mentioned or
identified, or something that is understood by both the speaker
and hearer, as distinct from "a" or "an"


a - CORE MEANING: the indefinite article, used before a singular
countable noun to refer to one person or thing not previously
known or specified, in contrast with "the," referring to
somebody or something known to the listener.

". . . . a machine . . . ."

Had the writers of this law had the intention that this "new copy
or adaptation" could only be used "in conjunction with" the
computer with the original adaption, then they would have written
"THE machince," but they didn't. They purposefully wrote "a
machine," a thing not previously known or specified.

So that's where I get my "interpretation" of "a machine" meaning:

". . . . a previously unknown computer . . . ."

Then part (1) ends with:

". . . . and that it is used in no other manner . . . ."

Which I use word for word in my interpretation.

So let's put it all together, and put the law and my
"interpretation" up side by side.

First the law again:

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

Now my "interpretation:"

". . . . 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 . . . . 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 . . . ."

So you see, Section 117 (a) says absolutely nothing about using
software on only one computer, or protecting the exclusive rights
of the copyright owner over that of the owner of a copy of
software. Section 117 (a) is a "Limitations on [the] exclusive
rights" of the copyright owner, and is a protection for "the
owner of a copy of a computer program"
from being sued by the copyright owner for "infringement" for
making "another copy or adaptation" for use on a non-specific
computer, and says ABSOLUTELY nothing about limiting all
adaptations to the same computer.


Now let's see you describe, in as minute detail as I have, how
Section 117 limits software to being installed on only one
computer at any given time, Bruce. My guess is that you either
won't reply, or you will try to blow it off in a sentence or two
that will distort the meaning of what is actually written in
Section 117.

And as anyone, with an open mind can see, I distort nothing in my
interpretation of Section 117, and I have a reasonable
explanation for everything I believe it means.

Has 1984 arrived in your mind, Kurt? (I am sure you must have
read 1984 by George Orwell)


What does 1984 have anything to do with Bruce's failure to repond
to this post?

You know the government conspiracy and spying on everyone. There
are cameras everywhere and most can be hacked into by hackers and
view you.

Again, "What does [this] have anything to do with Bruce's failure to
repond?"

What does explaining a law, in simpler terms have anything to do with
gov't conspiracies?

Do you have a tin foil hat on?

Why, aren't you able to answer for yourself?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

And yours, too. LOL :>

Only through faith, the ability to fool one's self into believing the
irrational, does one know that they have an immortal soul, and since I
try to be honest about what I believe, I don't know whether I have an
immortal soul, or not.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Plato]

Has 1984 arrived in your mind, Kurt? (I am sure you must have read 1984 by
George Orwell)

You mean cameras in the woods and government controlled war news. Nah,
will never happen

 

[Bruce Chambers]

LOL! When I respond to you rationally, you don't reply, you only seem
to respond to the name-calling.

What you've apparently yet to learn is that mindlessly repeating that
same lame, discredited nonsense over and over again for years, which is
all you've done, is _not_ a rational discussion. There's no point in
repeating the truth to you when you're so obviously determined to ignore it.


--

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

 

[kurttrail]

What you've apparently yet to learn is that mindlessly repeating that
same lame, discredited nonsense over and over again for years, which
is all you've done, is _not_ a rational discussion. There's no point
in
repeating the truth to you when you're so obviously determined to
ignore it.

LOL! When someone has a rational argument that disputes my opinion,
give me a call. You have yet to come up with one.

And actually I've never broke down my interpretation is such minute
detail until recently. Any reasonable person reading it can see that my
intepretation is not "discredited nonsence" but rather a very valid and
thoughtful interpretation of Section 117.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Any reasonable person reading it can see that my
intepretation is not "discredited nonsence" but rather a very valid and
thoughtful interpretation of Section 117.

Sure looked like a BS stance on section 117 to me. Care to site case law
examples were you are permitted to pirate additional installations when
only holding one license?