License key for home network

[kurttrail]

"Fair use" doesn't even come close to being defensible. Here are a
few quotes for you:

"The problem with the fair use of software stems in part from the
fact that users probably do not copy software programs to gain access
to the ideas expressed in them (except for reverse engineering), but
rather, to gain the economic benefit of what they can do as
functional computer programs. In this light, copying an entire
program for personal use in lieu of purchasing the program seems
entirely indefensible as a fair use."

"Making copies of copyrighted materials is one of the exclusive
rights of the copyright owner. What you have purchased is the right
to use a single copy of software, not the copyright itself."

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/mono2.htm

Look, just admit that you don't want to pay for your preferred
software and rather than switch to free or cheaper software, like
SolarisX86 or Linux, you would rather steal Microsoft's superior
product. I don't care. It's not my job to enforce their copyright.
My only responsibility is to abide by it. ;-)

carl

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
US Supreme Court.

I'll believe the Supremes until rule differently.


--
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"

 

[Rock]

"Rock" <[email protected]> wrote in message

|
| Yes, give up your integrity and lie. That's the way to do things.

You've never lied? Sometimes lies are necessary and it has nothing to do
with integrity.

Lol..oh my, lying has nothing to do with integrity? That is a sad - it
has everything to do with it.

 

[kurttrail]

Lol..oh my, lying has nothing to do with integrity? That is a sad -
it has everything to do with it.

Ever lied to a woman when she asks you, "How do I look?" ;-)

--
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"

 

[Alias]

| Rock wrote:
| > Alias wrote:
| >
| >
| >>>
| >>> Yes, give up your integrity and lie. That's the way to do things.
| >>
| >> You've never lied? Sometimes lies are necessary and it has nothing
| >> to do with integrity.
| >
| > Lol..oh my, lying has nothing to do with integrity? That is a sad -
| > it has everything to do with it.
|
| Ever lied to a woman when she asks you, "How do I look?" ;-)
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt

The three most famous lies:

"The check's in the mail."

"I'll love you forever."

"I won't come in your mouth."

 

[Guest]

| > Alias wrote:
|
| Ever lied to a woman when she asks you, "How do I look?" ;-)
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt

The three most famous lies:

"The check's in the mail."

"I'll love you forever."

"I won't come in your mouth."

Here's some more....

"No honey size doesn't matter."

"oh honey oh honey yes yes I'm coming I'm coming."

"You're the best I've ever had."

 

[kurttrail]

Here's some more....

"No honey size doesn't matter."

"oh honey oh honey yes yes I'm coming I'm coming."

"You're the best I've ever had."

But no guy that here's those words would believe they are a lie.

--
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"

 

[Guest]

But no guy that here's those words would believe they are a lie.

--
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"

Really? LOL Thanks Kurt...Sorry to break it to you

 

[NobodyMan]

| =?Utf-8?B?cXVhZGQ=?= wrote:
| >
| > break. Two licenses for a home network of two machines. Is this the
only
| > way that I can have XP on both machines?
|
| If you can afford two pcs than you can afford to pay for your OSs.

Perhaps he can afford 100 OSs but that doesn't make it right for MS to
insist on buying something twice.

I suppose if I can afford 10 cars I only need to buy one license plate
that I will use for all 10 cars? What's the difference?

 

[kurttrail]

Really? LOL Thanks Kurt...Sorry to break it to you

ROFL! Well I have only heard two out of three of those remarks, and I
believed them when I heard them.

--
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]

I suppose if I can afford 10 cars I only need to buy one license plate
that I will use for all 10 cars? What's the difference?

First, cars are material objects, software isn't.

Second, the government requires you to by license your vehicle under the
law, but not for software.

How are they the same?

If you want to build a copy of the car in your backyard for your own
personal non-commercial use, you legally can. If you are sold
copyrighted material, you can "fairly use" it.

--
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"

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Two weeks ago I purchased XP Professional Upgrade ( from Win98)and have
installed and activated on my machine. I installed on my wife's machine
today. So now I am being told that I need to buy another license at the same
price I paid less the cost of the CD... just for her. Wow,that is an
expensive alternative. I understand the problem with piracy but gimme a
break. Two licenses for a home network of two machines. Is this the only
way that I can have XP on both machines?

You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on
which you install it.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it
is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which WinXP
licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that
Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism,
Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult)
multiple installations using a single license.

You can buy additional licenses, assuming you have a retail
license. Naturally, Microsoft cannot sell additional OEM licenses. Be
aware, however, that you'll probably pay more this way than you would if
you were to buy a second copy of WinXP from a discount retailer;
Microsoft will only offer you a 15% discount off their MSRP.

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Home Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.asp

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp

--

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

And "fair use" of copyrighted products makes sense for individuals.

Don't try to pull that old trick, again. You know perfectly well that
the legal concept of "Fair Use" doesn't apply, in the case. It's not
even relevant. This matter has absolutely _nothing_ to do with "Fair
Use," a legal concept with which you are apparently completely unfamiliar.

"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the
public is entitled to freely use *portions* of copyrighted materials for
purposes of *commentary* and *criticism*. For example, if you wish to
criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of
the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom,
copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work."
(http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html)
(Emphasis mine.)

"Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are
discussed in detail below. It's important to understand that these
factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to
particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge
has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and the
outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.

"The four factors judges consider are:

1.. the purpose and character of your use
2.. the nature of the copyrighted work
3.. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4.. the effect of the use upon the potential market. "
(http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html)

Feel free to peruse the entire article, which will make it
abundantly clear that there is no way that anyone could successfully
argue that installing a second copy of an operation system onto a second
computer, without the copyright holder's express permission, for the
sole purpose of not having to buy a second license, could possibly meet
the criteria of "Fair Use."

To read the actual law that defines "fair use:"

TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 1 , Sec. 107.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html


--

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]

Don't try to pull that old trick, again. You know perfectly well that
the legal concept of "Fair Use" doesn't apply, in the case. It's not
even relevant. This matter has absolutely _nothing_ to do with "Fair
Use," a legal concept with which you are apparently completely
unfamiliar.

No court or law says that it doesn't apply.

"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the
public is entitled to freely use *portions* of copyrighted materials
for purposes of *commentary* and *criticism*.

There are instances where using the entire copy of copyrighted material
is allowable under fair use. As in the betamax case. People can copy
and use all of what they record.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

For example, if you
wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a
portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this
freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about
their work."
(http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html)
(Emphasis mine.)
"Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are
discussed in detail below. It's important to understand that these
factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to
particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge
has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and
the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.

"The four factors judges consider are:

1.. the purpose and character of your use

Private non-commercial use by an individual in the home.

2.. the nature of the copyrighted work

Copyrighted software.

3.. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

All of it.

4.. the effect of the use upon the potential market. "

None, since the copyright owner was paid for that copy of software.

(http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html)

Feel free to peruse the entire article, which will make it
abundantly clear that there is no way that anyone could successfully
argue that installing a second copy of an operation system onto a
second computer, without the copyright holder's express permission,
for the sole purpose of not having to buy a second license, could
possibly
meet the criteria of "Fair Use."

To read the actual law that defines "fair use:"

TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 1 , Sec. 107.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

I read it and and over the decades No Software Copyright owner has ever
sued an individual for "fairly using" copyrighted software.

"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 far, none have disagreed with my interpretation by legal means, and
that's the only way a sofware copyright owner will prove me wrong!

"Show me the money!"

--
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]

You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on
which you install it.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which
it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to
determine final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which
WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is
that Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft
mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more
difficult) multiple installations using a single license.

You can buy additional licenses, assuming you have a retail
license. Naturally, Microsoft cannot sell additional OEM licenses.
Be aware, however, that you'll probably pay more this way than you
would if you were to buy a second copy of WinXP from a discount
retailer; Microsoft will only offer you a 15% discount off their MSRP.

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Home Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.asp

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp

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 legally 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 or law 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 retailer. Who is the master of what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home, YOU or Microsoft? Until there is a law or legal precedent that tells you that the copyright owner rules in your home, shouldn't YOU be the master in YOUR own home? So that is YOUR choice, until the Government says otherwise. Who is the king of YOUR castle, Microsoft or YOU? Only YOU can decide that 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"

 

[Plato]

| If you can afford two pcs than you can afford to pay for your OSs.

Perhaps he can afford 100 OSs but that doesn't make it right for MS to
insist on buying something twice.

Tell that to McDonalds. I ALWAYS have to buy extra burgers to fill me
up.

 

[kurttrail]

Tell that to McDonalds. I ALWAYS have to buy extra burgers to fill me
up.

Well when hamburgers become copyrighted material, you can make your own
backup for those times when you need an extra one.

--
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"

 

[Guest]

ROFL! Well I have only heard two out of three of those remarks, and I
believed them when I heard them.

Yes of course you did *eg*

 

[Alias]

| On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:09:58 +0100, "Alias"
|
| >
| >| >| =?Utf-8?B?cXVhZGQ=?= wrote:
| >| >
| >| > break. Two licenses for a home network of two machines. Is this the
| >only
| >| > way that I can have XP on both machines?
| >|
| >| If you can afford two pcs than you can afford to pay for your OSs.
| >
| >Perhaps he can afford 100 OSs but that doesn't make it right for MS to
| >insist on buying something twice.
|
| I suppose if I can afford 10 cars I only need to buy one license plate
| that I will use for all 10 cars? What's the difference?

A licence plate plays the Windows wav file when you start your engine?
Apples/Oranges. Now, can you answer the question rationally?
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
|

 

[Leythos]

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 legally 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 or law
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 retailer. Who is
the master of what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home,
YOU or Microsoft? Until there is a law or legal precedent that tells
you that the copyright owner rules in your home, shouldn't YOU be the
master in YOUR own home? So that is YOUR choice, until the Government
says otherwise. Who is the king of YOUR castle, Microsoft or YOU? Only
YOU can decide that for YOURSELF!

Now that you've spouted again, it does not indicate ANYWHERE in the above
that any user is entitled to INSTALL a unlicensed copy of the software for
use at any time.

So, now that you've proven MS's point, that you are not legally entitled
to install more copies that you have licenses for, what podium are you
going to preach at now?

 

[Alias]

|
| Now that you've spouted again, it does not indicate ANYWHERE in the above
| that any user is entitled to INSTALL a unlicensed copy of the software for
| use at any time.
|
| So, now that you've proven MS's point, that you are not legally entitled
| to install more copies that you have licenses for, what podium are you
| going to preach at now?

The EULA says one cannot install on more than one machine. If one does so
and MS finds out, they would have to take one to court to enforce, now
wouldn't they? And, as Kurtis as pointed out many times, MS doesn't have the
balls to take a private person to court. Until then, the EULA is just a
bunch of hot air.

Personally, I feel that people who copy XP for financial gain are pirates.
Those who do it for personal use are not. YMMV. Personally, I don't install
anything but legal software and abide by the EULA because I use the software
for financial gain.