License key for home network

[Bob I]

Yes, but just look at the really neat sticks we have!

 

[Plato]

Nothing is more fustrating than being on a bus while it reboots.

I was in Target the other day and found they started selling food so I
picked up a gallon of milk. At checkout they said the computers were
down so I had to wait to pay.

I said just take the three dollars and she said I cant I dont know how
to do that.

I left the 3 on the line and walked out.

 

[Bob I]

The problem was the computer couldn't tell her how much change to give
you and she was incapable of figuring it out.

 

[David Candy]

I left school the same year your processor was born. The first 1 chip calculator - 4004.

My grandfather left school when his dad died and got three jobs (at 12) and supported his family. I could not teach him to use a calculator as he has no idea what +, -, x, or ÷ means. That doesn't mean he couldn't add but that he developed his own mathamatical conventions.

Pre calculator, normal people used books to look up sums (I use pencil and paper but I can do most sums in my head).

 

[NobodyMan]

And MS is a proven predatory monopoly, and copyright and patent
infringer in the process, but not ONE individual has ever been legally
proven to have violated MS's EULA for installing Windows on more than
one computer for non-commercial use in the privacy of their own home.

The courts declared MS used unfair tactics, but stopped short of
declaring MS in full violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act - thus MS
was not broke up, as would have been required IF MS had been found to
be a true monopoly. Anybody is free to challenge them on the open
market. It's just that MS has more money to spend on marketing and
can bury your product in the media - they can afford thousands of ads
to the newbies one.

So you and MS can CLAIM that it is a violation of the EULA until you are
blue in the face, but that does not make your claim legally true! All
it is, is an unsubstantiated claim!

It IS a violation of the EULA if you are doing what it says you can't
do. MS has just chosen not to take anybody to court - or they would
waste millions of dollars on stupid lawsuits. Why go down that path?
WPA actually prevents many of these issues, though obviously many
people bypass it.

 

[kurttrail]

The courts declared MS used unfair tactics, but stopped short of
declaring MS in full violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act - thus MS
was not broke up, as would have been required IF MS had been found to
be a true monopoly. Anybody is free to challenge them on the open
market. It's just that MS has more money to spend on marketing and
can bury your product in the media - they can afford thousands of ads
to the newbies one.


It IS a violation of the EULA if you are doing what it says you can't
do. MS has just chosen not to take anybody to court - or they would
waste millions of dollars on stupid lawsuits. Why go down that path?
WPA actually prevents many of these issues, though obviously many
people bypass it.

Is IBM guilty of violating the UNIX license just because SCO claims it
has? Why have a trial then? MS has chosen not to practice due
diligence in enforcing by legal means it's EULA restrictions on software
that is used by private non-commercial individuals, because it is to
afraid to lose in court, and then they could use the kangeroo court of
PA to get people to buy the same software over and over again.

PA stops nothing except the OSs of MS's paying customers, and just adds
another way to break their software, and is of absolutely no benefit to
the END USER.


--
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]

In other words you can't explain why you think Title 17, Chapter 1,
Section 117 makes it a violation to install the same copy of software on
more than one computer.

There's nothing to explain, since the law clearly states that only one
installation is permitted, regardless of where the computer is located.
What part of "a" do you not understand? Is one too high a number for
you to comprehend?


--

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]

There's nothing to explain, since the law clearly states that only one
installation is permitted,

Quote the exact words you think says that

regardless of where the computer is
located. What part of "a" do you not understand? Is one too high a
number for you to comprehend?

LOL! Read and learn, chumpers!


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.

--
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"

 

[NoneYa]

Try http://www.mscracks.com/cracks/W9.php

N.B. Watch out for the trojans.

We all know there is no such thing as safe sex.

 

[Bob I]

You mean on THAT side of the street!

We all know there is no such thing as safe sex.