Is it okay to burn a copy of xp ?

[Michael Stevens]

In

Fair Use is for a BACKUP of your media, not a backup copy for your
buddy.

What exactly is the difference? Say it is the same version of the OP's
buddy. The contents of the media are the exact same as the CD the OP lost
or was damaged?
You are obviously not comprehending the OP's needs. We are not talking about
sharing Product Keys, this concerns identical CD media that requires a
specific PK issued to a specific computer.
Fair use would not even be a factor in this kind of situation.
--
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

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

Um, telephone activation does not require anything but the
installation ID number. No other information is required. No other
questions need be answered.

BTW, I also provide that advice on my Move XP web site, but I don't chastise
people that don't know or don't believe if they do know it is the right way
to justify an activation.

From: http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx

"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)."

In addition, the generic OEM EULA says *nothing* about a motherboard.

So, you were saying?

Alias

--
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

 

[Alias]

But the average user does not know it is not necessary to give any detailed
information,

And Carey and Microsoft take full advantage of that fact yet you say
nothing.

so I still say you lie just as much as you accuse Carey when

you say " You will always be activated" It is just untrue, and you won't
admit it.

I never say anyone will "always be activated".

I am only confronting your biased and misleading attack on Carey when you
are totally wrong.

Poor widdle Carey who needs big daddy Michael to defend him. I'm still
waiting for you to tell me what I posted that was "totally wrong".

I have no problem with anyone posting corrections or suggestions to a post,
but discrediting valid information because you have a beef with someone is
not acceptable. If you want to add to his correct information with your
added comments, then do so.

Fact: Carey says that changing a motherboard cannot be done with a
generic OEM version of XP and *always* recommends buying a retail
version. This hurts people in the pocket yet you say nothing, ever. In
this case, he erroneously stated that one cannot burn a copy of XP an
lend it to a friend to use with the friend's paid for license and
suggested a much more time consuming procedure to solve the problem.

Alias

 

[Alias]

In

BTW, I also provide that advice on my Move XP web site, but I don't chastise
people that don't know or don't believe if they do know it is the right way
to justify an activation.

Yeah, you just let Carey spread the FUD and say nothing, we know. How noble.

Alias

 

[Alias]

In

What exactly is the difference? Say it is the same version of the OP's
buddy. The contents of the media are the exact same as the CD the OP lost
or was damaged?
You are obviously not comprehending the OP's needs. We are not talking about
sharing Product Keys, this concerns identical CD media that requires a
specific PK issued to a specific computer.
Fair use would not even be a factor in this kind of situation.

One cannot legally make a copy of their Windows XP
CD and give it to anyone as that would constitute a
form of software piracy. As i recommended earlier,
it would be best to have your friend order an authentic,
genuine, Windows XP CD replacement.

How to replace lost, broken, or missing Microsoft software or hardware
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/326246/en-us


-- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User

Gonna say something about this erroneous information that Carey posted,
Michael?

Alias

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

One cannot legally make a copy of their Windows XP
CD and give it to anyone as that would constitute a
form of software piracy. As i recommended earlier,
it would be best to have your friend order an authentic,
genuine, Windows XP CD replacement.

How to replace lost, broken, or missing Microsoft software or hardware
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/326246/en-us


-- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User

Gonna say something about this erroneous information that Carey
posted, Michael?

Alias

Yeah, he is wrong. I think I have called him out on this a couple of times,
but in essence, he is right, one cannot make a copy and give it to another
user. It is BS samantics that only makes users aware of the limitations of
the license but in reality, the replicated XP CD is no different than any
XP CD purchased right from a approved retail vendor. The defining factor is
the unique Product Key that must match the XP CD media.
--
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

 

[Club NT]

The XP EULA provides for an "EXPRESS EXCEPTION" when it comes to making a
backup or archival copy of the "software". It does not stipulate what media
specificially may or may not be used to create such a copy. So, they would
be well within their rights to create a backup copy for the "buddy" who is
already entitled to one.

 

[Alias]

In

Yeah, he is wrong. I think I have called him out on this a couple of times,
but in essence, he is right, one cannot make a copy and give it to another
user. It is BS samantics that only makes users aware of the limitations of
the license but in reality, the replicated XP CD is no different than any
XP CD purchased right from a approved retail vendor. The defining factor is
the unique Product Key that must match the XP CD media.

Thank you!

Alias

 

[bobxodhzh]

The XP EULA provides for an "EXPRESS EXCEPTION" when it comes to making a
backup or archival copy of the "software". It does not stipulate what media
specificially may or may not be used to create such a copy. So, they would
be well within their rights to create a backup copy for the "buddy" who is
already entitled to one.

You read that wrong. According to the EULA as it is written, or
copyright law for that fact, it is wrong for anyone to make a copy for
a friend and permanently transfer it to them, while you keep
possession of the original.

Now that said, there is nothing wrong with lending your copy to a
friend for the purpose of repair, and if your friend happens to burn
himself a copy, what you don't know, you don't know. And nothing in
the EULA actually makes it wrong for your friend to do this.

Again, this is all an abstract conversation, as MS would never put
themselves in the position of getting the bad press of suing someone
just helping out a friend who actually has a legit license to run XP.
At least I thought MS was smart enough not to cut off their nose to
spite their face, but now I'm not so certain. They are allowing some
news server cretin to give me & my opinions more credibility by
censoring all of my posts.

--
Wifjr!
Wlun Psekjc
Ezdl-lbbtumrr Ciwrdhpib
mwmh://onacdcjjs.msv
"Cy'cr csmn bibyn omju Ubjxbrh
Vxr xfxonj aicc twvse
Pqu qqx iztre ypfq cxv z-umzeabi'."

[Set your enigma machine to 666 to decode]

 

[Club NT]

x-no-archive: yes

Read the EULA again. There is an express exception to the copying
interdiction vis a vis creating a backup or archival copy. It precedes - in
the same paragragh - the interdiction on copying lending renting etc. etc.
It does not specifically stipulate what media must be/may be/may not be
used to make such a copy, nor specifically prohibit the use of another CD
than the original.

Furthermore, as per the original post, the 'spirit' of the EULA is not
infracted by helping a friend or neighbour secure an identical copy.

If Microsoft actually wanted to insist that the backup/archival copy be
created with the original media they should stipulate so. They did not.

So it becomes a matter of expediency - and not morals - and remains "OK" for
to let the friend create a copy (if all else resides in legitimacy).

 

[bobxodhzh]

x-no-archive: yes

Read the EULA again. There is an express exception to the copying
interdiction vis a vis creating a backup or archival copy. It precedes - in
the same paragragh - the interdiction on copying lending renting etc. etc.
It does not specifically stipulate what media must be/may be/may not be
used to make such a copy, nor specifically prohibit the use of another CD
than the original.

"Except as expressly provided in this EULA or by local law, you may
*NOT* otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE, including the printed
materials accompanying the SOFTWARE. You may not loan, rent, lease,
lend or otherwise transfer the CD or back-up copy to another user." (I
added the emphasis)

So I was wrong about the EULA not allowing the OP to LOAN his copy or
backup copy of XP. We all make mistakes.

Do you understand what the sentence "Except as expressly provided in
this EULA or by local law, you may NOT otherwise make copies of the
SOFTWARE, including the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE"
means?

It means that if the EULA doesn't specifically state you can make a
copy for a particular purpose, then you may not make that copy.

Where the gray area is, is in the line "or by local law."

US Copyright Law allows for the making of a copy for
repair/maintenance purposes as long as the copy is destroyed after the
repair/maintenance is made.

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize
the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely
by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an
authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of
maintenance or repair of that machine, if—
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed
immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not
necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part
thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by
virtue of the activation of the machine.

Furthermore, as per the original post, the 'spirit' of the EULA is not
infracted by helping a friend or neighbour secure an identical copy.

The spirit of the EULA is Jacob Marley.

The OP "may not loan, rent, lease, lend or otherwise transfer the CD
or back-up copy to another user."

The EULA says that "EXPRESSLY."

And the OP asked, "Is it okay to burn a copy of windows xp and give it
to my buddy ?" And according to the EULA, it is not.

Of course I would ignore the EULA, and help my buddy out, as that is
the moral thing to do.

If Microsoft actually wanted to insist that the backup/archival copy be
created with the original media they should stipulate so. They did not.

That is a discussion for when the OP's buddy asks us "Is it alright
for me to make a copy of my friend's CD to replace the one I lost."

So it becomes a matter of expediency - and not morals - and remains "OK" for
to let the friend create a copy (if all else resides in legitimacy).

That wasn't the OP's question. Nice, trying to pull the ole
switcheroo.

To me it is a question of whether the words of MS are more important
than helping out a friend. And for me, the answer is clear. MS's
EULA be damned. My friends are much more important than the whims of
MS.

--
Wifjr!
Wlun Psekjc
Ezdl-lbbtumrr Ciwrdhpib
mwmh://onacdcjjs.msv
"Cy'cr csmn bibyn omju Ubjxbrh
Vxr xfxonj aicc twvse
Pqu qqx iztre ypfq cxv z-umzeabi'."

[Set your enigma machine to 666 to decode]

 

[Club NT]

I think you are mistaken. I think the construction of the paragraph and the
import of the "express exception" would be enough to carry the legitimacy of
letting his friend create a "back-up" or "archival" copy from his copy both
morally and legally. On top of that, Microsoft does not specifically
stipulate that the archival copy be made from the original media, further
supporting this opinion. It simply states a "copy" of the "software" may be
made for back-up/archival purposes. When there is grey area one need look at
the weight of the words and here I think, IMO and IANAL, the impetus is to
prevent piracy not quality control. Since these lads are not pirating and
since they are sure they have the same version, and since Microsoft has not
specifically stipulated what exact original media a copy of the "software"
may be made from [and they would have if quality control were a concern],
what the lads are doing is A-OK.

 

[xheggenvy]

I think you are mistaken.

Think whatever you want. English is my first language, so I
understand it very well.

I think the construction of the paragraph
and the import of the "express exception" would be enough to carry
the legitimacy of letting his friend create a "back-up" or "archival"
copy from his copy both morally and legally.

You cannot even quote two words out of the EULA correctly. I doubt
you actually understand what is written.

On top of that,
Microsoft does not specifically stipulate that the archival copy be
made from the original media, further supporting this opinion. It
simply states a "copy" of the "software" may be made for
back-up/archival purposes. When there is grey area one need look at
the weight of the words and here I think, IMO and IANAL, the impetus
is to prevent piracy not quality control. Since these lads are not
pirating and since they are sure they have the same version, and
since Microsoft has not specifically stipulated what exact original
media a copy of the "software" may be made from [and they would have
if quality control were a concern], what the lads are doing is A-OK.

LOL! Not according to MS's EULA.

And like I've said, the EULA doesn't really matter, when it comes to
down to helping a friend with his problem.

"Except as expressly provided in this EULA or by local law, you may
not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE, including the printed
materials accompanying the SOFTWARE. You may not loan, rent, lease,
lend or otherwise transfer the CD or back-up copy to another user."

This does not say it is OK to make a copy and give it to someone else.
If you think it does, then you need to go back to school and relearn
english.

It is basically saying that if the EULA or local law doesn't
specifically state that you can make a copy for a specific purpose,
then you may not make that copy.

--
Crnpr!
Xheg Xvefpu
Frys-nabvagrq Zbqrengbe
uggc://zvpebfphz.pbz
"Vg'yy fbba funxr lbhe Jvaqbjf
Naq enggyr lbhe jnyyf
Sbe gur gvzrf gurl ner n-punatva'."

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

As long as your friend still has his own Product Key, yes.

 

[Club NT]

I think you are mistaken.

Think whatever you want. English is my first language, so I
understand it very well.

I think the construction of the paragraph
and the import of the "express exception" would be enough to carry
the legitimacy of letting his friend create a "back-up" or "archival"
copy from his copy both morally and legally.

You cannot even quote two words out of the EULA correctly. I doubt
you actually understand what is written.

On top of that,
Microsoft does not specifically stipulate that the archival copy be
made from the original media, further supporting this opinion. It
simply states a "copy" of the "software" may be made for
back-up/archival purposes. When there is grey area one need look at
the weight of the words and here I think, IMO and IANAL, the impetus
is to prevent piracy not quality control. Since these lads are not
pirating and since they are sure they have the same version, and
since Microsoft has not specifically stipulated what exact original
media a copy of the "software" may be made from [and they would have
if quality control were a concern], what the lads are doing is A-OK.

LOL! Not according to MS's EULA.

And like I've said, the EULA doesn't really matter, when it comes to
down to helping a friend with his problem.

"Except as expressly provided in this EULA or by local law, you may
not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE, including the printed
materials accompanying the SOFTWARE. You may not loan, rent, lease,
lend or otherwise transfer the CD or back-up copy to another user."

This does not say it is OK to make a copy and give it to someone else.
If you think it does, then you need to go back to school and relearn
english.

It is basically saying that if the EULA or local law doesn't
specifically state that you can make a copy for a specific purpose,
then you may not make that copy.

But they are not "giving a copy to someone else". They are creating a
back-up copy to which his "buddy" is already entitled. The EULA expressly
provides that each licensee is entitled to a backup copy and it doesn't
specifiy exactly how such a copy may be created. Note that the paragraph
begins with the word "Except".

It says you may not loan, rent, lease, lend or otherwise "transfer". But
here he is not "transfering" his copy to another user. I think the intention
is still anti-piracy here. He's not "giving away" the software to someone
who's not payed for a license. I think the import of those sentences are an
interdiction against piracy. So by letting his friend use the copy to make a
back up he is not loaning. Why? Because there the words "loan" and "lend"
implies the other person has not payed for a copy (as in you might loan me
some cash for interest, or lend me a book to read). This is not the case
here. The interdiction is against piracy, not against creating a back-up for
his friend.

IN OTHER WORDS, when I read "lend" and "loan" I read it as if one friend
bought the book and lends it to his friend to read who has not bought the
book. Or one friend has bought the album and lends it to his friend, who has
not bought it, to listen to. The "buddy" here, though, has payed for his
copy. He's not borrowing the book so to speak, as he already has the book.

To conclude this reply: The EULA expressly excepts the creation of one
backup copy per license. I don't read "lend" and "loan" as applying here. I
read their meaning circumscriptly - in the spirit of the EULA to guard
against piracy. I see it as a "let" (not a "lend") as in he *let* his friend
use his CD to create the backup copy to which his friend is already entitled
to. Because it is a "let", it is simply an issue of pragmatics and
convenience .. and not a moral issue of piracy, nor offence, nor theft.

 

[obokbqumu]

I think you are mistaken.

Think whatever you want. English is my first language, so I
understand it very well.

I think the construction of the paragraph
and the import of the "express exception" would be enough to carry
the legitimacy of letting his friend create a "back-up" or "archival"
copy from his copy both morally and legally.

You cannot even quote two words out of the EULA correctly. I doubt
you actually understand what is written.

On top of that,
Microsoft does not specifically stipulate that the archival copy be
made from the original media, further supporting this opinion. It
simply states a "copy" of the "software" may be made for
back-up/archival purposes. When there is grey area one need look at
the weight of the words and here I think, IMO and IANAL, the impetus
is to prevent piracy not quality control. Since these lads are not
pirating and since they are sure they have the same version, and
since Microsoft has not specifically stipulated what exact original
media a copy of the "software" may be made from [and they would have
if quality control were a concern], what the lads are doing is A-OK.

LOL! Not according to MS's EULA.

And like I've said, the EULA doesn't really matter, when it comes to
down to helping a friend with his problem.

"Except as expressly provided in this EULA or by local law, you may
not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE, including the printed
materials accompanying the SOFTWARE. You may not loan, rent, lease,
lend or otherwise transfer the CD or back-up copy to another user."

This does not say it is OK to make a copy and give it to someone else.
If you think it does, then you need to go back to school and relearn
english.

It is basically saying that if the EULA or local law doesn't
specifically state that you can make a copy for a specific purpose,
then you may not make that copy.

But they are not "giving a copy to someone else". They are creating a
back-up copy to which his "buddy" is already entitled. The EULA expressly
provides that each licensee is entitled to a backup copy and it doesn't
specifiy exactly how such a copy may be created. Note that the paragraph
begins with the word "Except".

It says you may not loan, rent, lease, lend or otherwise "transfer". But
here he is not "transfering" his copy to another user. I think the intention
is still anti-piracy here. He's not "giving away" the software to someone
who's not payed for a license. I think the import of those sentences are an
interdiction against piracy. So by letting his friend use the copy to make a
back up he is not loaning. Why? Because there the words "loan" and "lend"
implies the other person has not payed for a copy (as in you might loan me
some cash for interest, or lend me a book to read). This is not the case
here. The interdiction is against piracy, not against creating a back-up for
his friend.

IN OTHER WORDS, when I read "lend" and "loan" I read it as if one friend
bought the book and lends it to his friend to read who has not bought the
book. Or one friend has bought the album and lends it to his friend, who has
not bought it, to listen to. The "buddy" here, though, has payed for his
copy. He's not borrowing the book so to speak, as he already has the book.

To conclude this reply: The EULA expressly excepts the creation of one
backup copy per license. I don't read "lend" and "loan" as applying here. I
read their meaning circumscriptly - in the spirit of the EULA to guard
against piracy. I see it as a "let" (not a "lend") as in he *let* his friend
use his CD to create the backup copy to which his friend is already entitled
to. Because it is a "let", it is simply an issue of pragmatics and
convenience .. and not a moral issue of piracy, nor offence, nor theft.

LOL! The EULA doesn't expressly allow "lets."

The EULA is quite clear. And you aren't even twisting it very well.

Again, sh*t on the EULA, unless you hold it in higher regard than your
friend.

--
Jvswe!
Jyha Cfrxwp
Rmqy-yooghzee Pvjequcvo
zjzu://banpqpwwf.zfi
"Pl'pe pfza ovola bzwh Howkoeu
Ike kskbaw nvpp gjifr
Cdh ddk vmger lcsd pki m-hzmrnov'."

[Frg lbhe ravtzn znpuvar gb 666 gb qrpbqr]