Licensing

[hermes]

While listening to the voices in their head blather on endlessly about
inspecific gibberish, David <[email protected]> typed:
:: ::
::: While listening to the voices in their head blather on endlessly
::: about inspecific gibberish, David typed:
::::: @tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
:::::
:::::
:::::::: Your mentality shows with the above, you are trying to make a
:::::::: statement, but you only offend.
:::::::: By opening your reply, only someone with physic skills or
:::::::: previous knolodge could know doing so would condem the
:::::::: respondent to burning in hell, you do not give a choice to
:::::::: agree or disagree before you declare one should burn in hell.
:::::::: Even [the evil in your opinion] Microsoft gives you a choice
:::::::: to agree or disagree.
::::::::
:::::::: --
:::::: M$'s shrink wrapped license does the same thing, doesn't it?
::::::
:::::
::::: No, The EULA has a a way to agree or disagree with it, The "I
::::: Agree" and " I don't Agree" buttons.
:::::
:::::
::::: --
:::::
::::: David
:::::
::::: Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.
:::::
::::: "Due to Viewer dicretion...
::::: Graphic violence is advised"
:::::
::::: http://www.HeroicStories.com/
::::: http://www.thisistrue.com/
:::
:::
::: Yes, but that's not until after one purchases the shrink wrapped
::: package, open it, and start the install. One loses any chance of
::: returning it to the store from where it was purchased after breaking
::: the shrink wrap.
::
::
:: Call a lawyer. Microsoft has an agreement with thier retailers
:: that says they will accept a returned package from a un-satifified
:: customer, or Microsoft is responsable for the refund.
::
:: It can be argued that buy both the retailer and Microsoft
:: refusing the honor the return commitment, They have broken the
:: contract and it is now Null & Void. but, You would need to get a
:: written proof from both that they won't accept the return.
::
::
::
:: --
::
:: David
::
:: Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.
::
:: "Due to Viewer dicretion...
:: Graphic violence is advised"
::
:: http://www.HeroicStories.com/
:: http://www.thisistrue.com/

"Microsoft has an agreement with thier retailers
that says they will accept a returned package from a un-satifified
customer, or Microsoft is responsable for the refund."

Yes, if you are lucky, M$ will refund you the purchase price minus shipping
for returning the product to them, and even then I bet the refund sits in
their bank account(s) collecting alot of interest.

 

[Michael Stevens]

Nobody else answered this question yesterday, so I'll try it again
today:

What if you purchase it second-hand, preinstalled on a computer, from
someone who no longer has the box? Now the new end-user will be using
the software without having seen the box or the installation dialogue;
conceivably, never having seen the EULA at all.

Now how would MS claim the EULA is binding on that end-user?

Ian,
When XP is sold, according to the EULA it is clear that the terms of the
EULA must be agreed to before transfer.
<snipped from EULA>
Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
I am not sure how that relates to your specific example, but when I purchase
something whether new or used I ask a few questions and do some research to
make sure it fits my needs and I have obtained the proper rights of usage
for my needs. When purchasing used software or computers, you should be more
careful to find out what you are purchasing so you do not wind up with a
system that is full of pirated and/or useless software.
The enforcement would be the same, you have to agree to the EULA to continue
setup if it is necessary to reinstall or installed to multiple computers.
Activation is the enforcement and prompts you for extra verification when
activation detects significant hardware changes. If significant hardware was
changed, you will need to make a phone call activation and if you give a
truthful answer to questions asked, you will receive a new activation code
or be denied. Microsoft does not question the integrity of the consumer and
will activate if the requirements for activatation are met. If denied,
consult the EULA for clarification on the Microsoft licensing limitations.
All Windows versions since 95 to the present have been licensed for one
computer per license. Activation makes the average consumer aware of this
limitation.

--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling and/or replying to this post on your computer,
you agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this
term will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"

Looks like all your posts are now self plonking. Can't see the reply
and won't scroll. You couldn't enforce it, but I won't agree to your
terms and I doubt I am missing anything of importance.


Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, you agree that I
am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term will result
in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"

Printed right on the outside of the retail box it says it is
licensed for installation on one computer.

The exact wording is below.
The product uses technological measures for copy protection-you will
not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the
product activation procedures. Product aactivation procedures and
Microsoft's priviacy statements will be described during the launch
of the product. For installation and use on one computer(see License
Agreement for license terms). You must accept the the enclosed
License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not
accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly
return the product for a refund.

Do you accept the summary on the box, or the one hidden in the
installation process? Or MS post-EULA policies, subject to change at
MS whim, that are totally outside of any agreement?

How can you rationally justify that the EULA acceptance happens
before purchase?

You do remember that most of the tobacco companies lost, despite the
cancer warnings that were mandated by the Federal Gov't?

MS's intentions, and their copy protection doesn't give them rights
to limit an individual from 'fairly using' their legally purchased
copy
of copyrighted material in the privacy of their own homes, and there
is no legal precedent to suggests otherwise. Even the DMCA protects
our rights to "fair use." "Nothing in this section shall affect
rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement,
including fair use, under this title." So just because some
self-interested predatory monopoly writes something on the outside of
their box, or in a shrinkwrap license, doesn't mean it is legally
enforceable on individuals in the privacy of their own home.

And after over a decade on knowing that these shrinkwrap license
terms are being broken, but never trying to enforce that terms
legally, in a court of law, MS has effectively abandoned those usage
terms!

To the open-minded people of this group:

So to this MS-SOB, accepting MS EULA happens when reading MS's
summary
on the box prior to purchase! ROFL! Totally delusional!

And of course he ignores the fact that it quite legal to break any
contract, unless the other party wants to bring it to court to try to
convince a judge to redress the situation. But in over a decade
since the beginning of the Personal Computer boom, not one post-sale
shrinkwrap license usage term has ever been found in any US court of
law to be a valid "software license" term that is legally enforceable
on any private non-commercial individual. And there is absolutely no
legal precedent that even one private non-commercial individual has
been charged with, let alone convicted of, anything in regards to
breaking the usage terms of any shrinkwrap license *ever*.

It's comes down to a matter of logic, MS has no legal right to know
who buys copies of their shrinkwrap licensed retail software
[especially if you pay with cash], and they have no legal right to
know who allegedly accepts their retail EULAs [especially if you
don't register the copy of software with MS], so how can MS ever
legally enforce their post-sale usage terms in a court of law on any
legally-anonymous private individual? Obviously, MS can't. That's
why they dreamed up PA, to trick people in believing what they cannot
logically prove in a real court of law.

I back up my opinions with laws, and court decisions, [see
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/] can anyone of the MicroZealots do the
same to back up their opinion that MS has the right to know and
control how you use the legally purchased copies of software in the
privacy of your home? Obviously, the MicroSycophants can't. After 2
years of arguing this out in this newsgroup, not one of them can come
up with any law or court decision to back up the legal enforceability
of MS's EULA usage terms on any private individual, as I have to back
up my beliefs.

It comes down to deciding what you believe is true for you, MS's EULA
FUD, or the laws & court decisions of the United States of America?

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

My plan is working! ;-)

--
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]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, you agree that I am
your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you
burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"

Ian,
When XP is sold, according to the EULA it is clear that the terms of
the EULA must be agreed to before transfer.
<snipped from EULA>
Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
I am not sure how that relates to your specific example, but when I
purchase something whether new or used I ask a few questions and do
some research to make sure it fits my needs and I have obtained the
proper rights of usage for my needs. When purchasing used software or
computers, you should be more careful to find out what you are
purchasing so you do not wind up with a system that is full of
pirated and/or useless software.
The enforcement would be the same, you have to agree to the EULA to
continue setup if it is necessary to reinstall or installed to
multiple computers. Activation is the enforcement and prompts you for
extra verification when activation detects significant hardware
changes. If significant hardware was changed, you will need to make a
phone call activation and if you give a truthful answer to questions
asked, you will receive a new activation code or be denied. Microsoft
does not question the integrity of the consumer and will activate if
the requirements for activatation are met. If denied, consult the
EULA for clarification on the Microsoft licensing limitations. All
Windows versions since 95 to the present have been licensed for one
computer per license. Activation makes the average consumer aware of
this limitation.

Again, the MicroMoron uses MS's words to prove his case, not existing
laws or court decisions. Not one person that believes MS's EULA can use
laws and/or court decisions to back up their case!

MS IS NOT THE LAW! THEY ARE A CONVICTED PREDATORY MONOPOLY! Do you
take SCO's claims about linux enforceable over the law? No, that's why
we have laws & courts, to settle these kind of disputes. SCO claims
that IBM has breeched their Unix license, and has even given IBM notice
that they have pulled their license to sell UNIX. Notice that IBM is
still selling UNIX systems in spite of SCO's claims, until a court
decides.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,82200,00.html

MS has known that people have been breaking their bogus post-sale
licensing terms for over a decade, but has yet to try to legally enforce
it in a court of law, and dreamed up PA to trick the unsuspecting
consumer in to believing what MS has been too afraid to prove in a real
court of law. At least SCO has the balls to put it's money where it's
mouth is, unlike the chicken-sh*t's at MS!

--
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!"

 

[Robert T]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, you agree that I am
your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you
burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"

LOL, what a shock to find you in a thread with this subject!
Say, what if I just print and not scroll, does that allow me more reads while denying you hard earned disciple points?

How have you been? Nearly about holiday time for you wouldn't it?


Cheers

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

LOL, what a shock to find you in a thread with this subject!
Say, what if I just print and not scroll, does that allow me more
reads while denying you hard earned disciple points?

DAMN! Another loophole! ROFL!

Why does everyone rain on my messianic delusions?! ;-)

How have you been?

Great! Hope you've been having fun too!

Nearly about holiday time for you wouldn't it?

The best one! Thanksgiving!

One of the greatest ideas to come out of this, the country of birth.
Unfortunately, now the US is too busy exporting the neo-conservative
agenda that might makes right. I'm just thankful that the rest of the
world isn't buying it yet.

--
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!"

 

[Michael Stevens]

No requirement necessary to read my post.

Self plonking, what a concept! It's a waste of your time replying with your
requirement to burn in hell to read your reply, and from my dealings with
you, I am not sure you are not the devil, you certainly have demonstrated a
mentality lacking of moral conscious, and willingness to use the lack of
moral conscious as your weapon of choice. I find it amusing how you accuse
Microsoft of abusing fairplay and how you embrace the abuse of fairplay with
your dealings to participants in these newsgroups.
You continue to encourage honest people they have the right to lie to get
more than they agree to if they want to use the same license for multiple
installs. Your opinion the agreement cannot be enforced makes no difference
in the fact the honest consumer must consciously lie about their intentions
to use the same license on multiple computers. They cannot continue setup if
they do not agree to the licensing restrictions of one computer per license.
Why don't you add they have to lie on your web site? My argument with you
has never been you can't do it, it's just you have to lie to do it. If the
user agreed with the fair play argument, the user still has to lie to
install XP on multiple computers using the same license.
If you have a relevant reply, change the requirement to access the reply. My
motto for kurt's burn in hell agreement is I don't scroll. LOL

--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling anything on your computer ever again, you agree
that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term will
result in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"

No requirement necessary to read my post.

There isn't on mine either, because it's just as legally enforceable as
MS's EULA usage terms on private individuals.

Self plonking, what a concept!

Aren't you still replying. You are making a personal choice that my
"license" is enforceable. There is nothing, either legally or morally,
to keep you from just ignoring it!

It's a waste of your time replying
with your requirement to burn in hell to read your reply, and from my
dealings with
you, I am not sure you are not the devil, you certainly have
demonstrated a mentality lacking of moral conscious, and willingness
to use the lack of
moral conscious as your weapon of choice.

LOL! You have really lost it, Mikey. You're not sure if I'm not the
Devil! ROFL!

Boo!

I find it amusing how you
accuse Microsoft of abusing fairplay and how you embrace the abuse of
fairplay with your dealings to participants in these newsgroups.

Fairplay?! LOL! I'm just showing how ridiculous MS's EULA really is!
And I not afraid to poke fun of myself in the process.

You continue to encourage honest people they have the right to lie to
get
more than they agree to if they want to use the same license for
multiple installs. Your opinion the agreement cannot be enforced
makes no difference
in the fact the honest consumer must consciously lie about their
intentions
to use the same license on multiple computers.

Nowhere in my Multiple Activations FAQ do I tell people to lie.

"The only information required to activate is an installation ID (and,
for Office XP and Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the name
of the country in which the product is being installed)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details

Who has to lie if "The only information required to activate is an
installation ID" for Windows XP? OR is MS lying with this statement,
and they do really do *require* more information than the installation
ID to activate Windows XP?

They cannot continue
setup if they do not agree to the licensing restrictions of one
computer per license. Why don't you add they have to lie on your web
site?

Because, I quote MS's own words in my FAQ. Either MS's requires only
the installation ID to activate Windows XP, and no one needs to lie
about anything, or MS is lying, and they do require more info!

My argument with you
has never been you can't do it, it's just you have to lie to do it.

And again, no lying is required, unless MS was lying in the first place!

If the
user agreed with the fair play argument, the user still has to lie to
install XP on multiple computers using the same license.

No they just agree to abide by the terms that are legally enforeable,
and ignore those they dispute. Just like any reasonable person just
ignores my post's "license."

If you have a relevant reply, change the requirement to access the
reply.

I have!

My motto for kurt's burn in hell agreement is I don't scroll.
LOL

Now you won't even be able scroll anything on your computer ever again!
ROFL!

Have fun using the the Page Up & Page Down keys for the rest of your
life! ;-)

--
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!"

 

[Nemesis of the STUPID!]

-----Original Message-----
clicks "I Agree",

Parents are responsible for the actions of thier children. If a child
installs Windows without parental permission, and the parents does not
agree with the EULA. Then they are required to remove Windows

Required by a EULA which they didn't even read. LOL!

for you?

Again, If you don't aggree. You are required to remove Windows.

Then you have agreed by purchaing the computer with Windows installed.
If you don't agree. Buy a system without Windows, or

remove the OS.

How would they know that since they didn't even read the EULA?

Proof of consent is using Windows

Prove what OS I'm posting from, STUPID! ;-)

 

[Ian Merrithew]

(if) the parents does not
agree with the EULA. Then they are required to remove Windows [...]
If you don't aggree. You are required to remove Windows. [...]
If you don't agree. Buy a system without Windows, or remove the OS. [...]
Proof of consent is using Windows

Your train of thought stuck?

I raised a number of hypothetical scenarios where proof of consent to the
EULA is in question. You dodged each and every one of them and repeat
the same mantra over and over. Even in scenarios where the license *is
never read*, you want to maintain that using Windows is proof that the
license was read & agreed to?

That's pretty flimsy evidence to take before a judge. But let's set that
aside, you raise another issue.

On what legal basis does failure to agree to the license deny the end-
user the right to use the software? If the license isn't agreed to, then
the only control Microsoft would be left with is copyright law. And
copyright law says that installing the software on a computer and using
it *is not an infringement*. So now what?

 

[Ian Merrithew]

[This one's a bit OT, but may be of interest]

SCO claims that IBM has breeched their Unix license, and has even
given IBM notice that they have pulled their license to sell UNIX.
Notice that IBM is still selling UNIX systems in spite of SCO's
claims, until a court decides.

And SCO is getting its ass handed to it by some of the best corporate
lawyers on the planet. IBM is slowly, methodically, and ruthlessly
tearing SCO's FUD-based lawsuit to pieces in their legal filings, and no
doubt in the countersuit will proceed to do the same with whatever's left
of SCO after the initial lawsuit gets dismissed (with prejudice, I hope)
and SCO's stock price crashes.

 

[David]

Required by a EULA which they didn't even read. LOL!

Tell a Judge that you never read the EULA and he is going to say
"Toobad. You should have". Ignorance is not an excuse.

Prove what OS I'm posting from, STUPID! ;-)

Sure. Send my your computer.
--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[David]

(if) the parents does not
agree with the EULA. Then they are required to remove Windows [...]
If you don't aggree. You are required to remove Windows. [...]
If you don't agree. Buy a system without Windows, or remove the OS. [...]
Proof of consent is using Windows

Your train of thought stuck?

I raised a number of hypothetical scenarios where proof of consent to
the EULA is in question. You dodged each and every one of them and
repeat the same mantra over and over. Even in scenarios where the
license *is never read*, you want to maintain that using Windows is
proof that the license was read & agreed to?

If it's your computer. It's your resposableity to read and understand
the EULA. If you tell a Judge your never read it, for whatever reason,
he's going to tell you "Too bad. Bad should have." and the Courts are
going to decide on the assumption that you had.

If Windows is working, then somebody agreed to the EULA

That's pretty flimsy evidence to take before a judge. But let's set
that aside, you raise another issue.

On what legal basis does failure to agree to the license deny the end-
user the right to use the software? If the license isn't agreed to,
then the only control Microsoft would be left with is copyright law.
And copyright law says that installing the software on a computer and
using it *is not an infringement*. So now what?

Installing it on two or more computers is an infringement. Microsoft
grants you license to install on one.

Copyright Law gives the owner of a copyright control over distribution
of thier product. Installing software would fall under distribution.

--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[David]

MS IS NOT THE LAW! THEY ARE A CONVICTED PREDATORY MONOPOLY!

Then why wasn't the EULA included in the lawsuits brought
against Microsoft by those many States? I'm sure if you arent' a
binding and legel contract, at least one of those District
Attorney's would have brought it up.

--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

 

[Nemesis of the STUPID!]

-----Original Message-----


Tell a Judge that you never read the EULA and he is going to say
"Toobad. You should have". Ignorance is not an excuse.

Only for you, STUPID! I'm totally anonymous to you. You
don't even have enough probable cause to get a search
warrent, nevermind actually getting me before a judge!

Sure. Send my your computer.

Get a warrent, Stupid! ROFL!

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

<If the license isn't agreed to, then
the only control Microsoft would be left with is copyright law. And
copyright law says that installing the software on a computer and using
it *is not an infringement*. So now what?>

During installation, if you don't agree to the EULA, you cannot complete
installation so the point is moot.


--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

(if) the parents does not
agree with the EULA. Then they are required to remove Windows [...]
If you don't aggree. You are required to remove Windows. [...]
If you don't agree. Buy a system without Windows, or remove the OS. [...]
Proof of consent is using Windows

Your train of thought stuck?

I raised a number of hypothetical scenarios where proof of consent to the
EULA is in question. You dodged each and every one of them and repeat
the same mantra over and over. Even in scenarios where the license *is
never read*, you want to maintain that using Windows is proof that the
license was read & agreed to?

That's pretty flimsy evidence to take before a judge. But let's set that
aside, you raise another issue.

On what legal basis does failure to agree to the license deny the end-
user the right to use the software? If the license isn't agreed to, then
the only control Microsoft would be left with is copyright law. And
copyright law says that installing the software on a computer and using
it *is not an infringement*. So now what?

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

If it's your computer. It's your resposableity to read and
understand the EULA. If you tell a Judge your never read it, for
whatever reason, he's going to tell you "Too bad. Bad should have."
and the Courts are going to decide on the assumption that you had.

http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/consumer/contracts.html#who

If a minor buys WinXP, he can't be held to the license.

If Windows is working, then somebody agreed to the EULA

Sounds like definitive evidence to me! It would be up to the Licenser
to prove it by the preponderance of the evidence exactly who did agree.

You really are an effin' moron. Distribution would be giving it to

someone else, not installing it on more than one computer, which would
be reproduction.

You really should just keep you mouth shut on these legal topics, as you
aren't bright enough to comprehend the nuances of the law.

Installing it on two or more computers is an infringement. Microsoft
grants you license to install on one.

Infringement is copyright law. Licensing is contract law. Breaking a
license is not infringement, and is not illegal in and of itself. And
there is no US copyright law that makes installing software on more than
one computer infringement. Do I really need to beat Title 17 Chapter 1
Section 117 into your teeny pea brain again?!

Copyright Law gives the owner of a copyright control over
distribution of thier product.

However their monopoly is not absolute.

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

Installing software would fall under
distribution.

--
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]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Then why wasn't the EULA included in the lawsuits brought
against Microsoft by those many States? I'm sure if you arent' a
binding and legel contract, at least one of those District
Attorney's would have brought it up.

Consumers protection wasn't really a part of the Anti-trust suits, it
was more about their using their monopoly to restrain the trade of other
companies. Why hasn't MS never tried to enforced their license on a
private individual by legal means, in a court of law? I'm sure that if
they proved it just once, that a lot more people would think twice
before ignoring their so-called "license." But then they stand the
chance of losing, and then they really be up sh*t's creek, because then
it would be a lot harder to fool people into buying more software than
they really need!

--
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]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

<If the license isn't agreed to, then
the only control Microsoft would be left with is copyright law. And
copyright law says that installing the software on a computer and
using
it *is not an infringement*. So now what?>

During installation, if you don't agree to the EULA, you cannot
complete installation so the point is moot.

Not if your a minor! A minor has every legal right to walk into WalMart
and buy software. And a minor can't be legally held to a contract
unless it's for a necessity like food or shelter.

It's not moot if I think that MS's terms violate copyright law or is in
some other way unconscionable. All I have to do under contract law is
ignore those terms, then it's up to MS to sue me to try to convince a
judge to enforce that contract. I won't hold my breath!

The only thing that's kinda moot is the legal enforceability of MS's
usage terms, until MS's get the balls to try to prove it's usage terms
are actually enforceable on private individuals, once and for all.
Hell, after over a decade of turning a blind eye to legal enforcement of
the One Computer term, MS risks summary judgment against them if they
now decided after all these years to pursue it in court.

--
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!"

 

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

No argument on the minor.

However, if you can't get past the EULA, in other words, you have to agree
or XP won't install, then it's moot and, under the conditions you specify,
it would then be up to the user to seek legal remedy in order to bypass the
EULA unless some other means were used. However, for the sake of this
discussion, I think it's important to stay within legal boundaries,
enforceable or not. In this case, I'm talking about a technical boundary;
hence, it would be up to the user to seek legal remedy to bypass the
boundary (the EULA). Under this scenario, the burden doesn't fall to
Microsoft unless the user seeks legal remedy and even then, the user would
have to prove it's illegal. By burden in this instance, I'm referring to
the need of Microsoft to defend against any such suit.

Kurt, I'm not making a comment. I am watching the thread but I'm only
trying to correct misinformation without interfering in the debate. The
post to which I replied posed a question based on an assumption that under
normal circumstances and without use of any method to bypass the EULA cannot
be done, hence that point is moot.