1) Let's apply a little common sense to the question, shall we?
Does your local grocer let you walk out of the market with three
loaves of bread when you've paid for only one?
This analogy *does not apply*. Physical property != copyrighted works.
What you describe would be a proper analogy if you were attempting to
walk out of the store with 2 CDs but only pay for 1. This little "you
only buy the license" fantasy that you & others on this NG have
completely *ignores* the relevant section of copyright law, that states
that a copy of work, *fixed* in some form, *is* property, and thus
subject to applicable property laws. The WindowsXP CD, in my home, that
I paid for, is *my property*, and by extension the *copy* of Windows that
exists on that CD, is *my property*. The *copyright* to Windows remains
with Microsoft and I can make no claim to it.
Whether or not I have the right to fairly use that copy of Windows on
more than one of my computers (if I had more than one) may or *may not
be* subject to the "one computer-one copy" licensing term enclosed with
it. Since that provision of the license has never been argued in a court
of law, the legality of it hasn't truly been determined.
So try this analogy on for size: if I buy a music CD, and in that CD it
says, "For listening on a single stereo only," do I then have to go out
and buy more copies of that CD in order to listen to it on all my various
audio devices? Or would my right to fairly use the CD that I own trump
the provision? This hypothetical is a much more accurate analogy to
whether multiple installs (for private, noncommercial use) is a "fair
use" or not.
