OEM

[Daniel L. Belton]

but you CAN say that he STOLE the second copy of the software from
Microsoft.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

actually, when you keep the software installed on your system, you are
agreeing to a contract. and you say it in your response... you bought a
license and NOT the software, so it's not yours and you have to abide by the
contract with Microsoft...

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

No.. the CD may be your property, but the content on the CD still belongs
to microsoft as you agreed to by keeping the software on your machine. You
agreed to a contract... This has been tried in the courts in past years
with companies like IBM as far back as the 1950's.

 

[David]

I have and it is against the constitution of the USA. So

stick it.

And, Just how is it agaisnt the U.S. Constitution??



--

David

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

 

[Ian Merrithew]

[maybe I shouldn't resurrect the thread, but I've been away for several
days]

but you CAN say that he STOLE the second copy of the software from
Microsoft.

What LAW says that making a second installation of Windows on your own
personal computer, for your own private, noncommercial use, is a crime?

Hint: Microsoft's EULA is not a law. And if that EULA attempts to
violate a point of law, it (or at least the applicable term) becomes null
& void.

 

[Jim Macklin]

The EULA is a contract which can be enforced in court.


| [maybe I shouldn't resurrect the thread, but I've been
away for several
| days]
|
| "Daniel L. Belton" <[email protected]>
wrote in
| |
| > but you CAN say that he STOLE the second copy of the
software from
| > Microsoft.
|
| What LAW says that making a second installation of Windows
on your own
| personal computer, for your own private, noncommercial
use, is a crime?
|
| Hint: Microsoft's EULA is not a law. And if that EULA
attempts to
| violate a point of law, it (or at least the applicable
term) becomes null
| & void.
|
| --
| Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
| ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org

 

[Ian Merrithew]

The EULA is a contract which can be enforced in court.

Yes, but enforcing a contract != the legal definition of "theft", which
refers to unlawfully depriving another of their property. Using the word
"stolen" is inappropriate when discussing an EULA violation. Even the word
"legally" shouldn't be used (i.e. "you can't legally activate Windows on
two PCs...") -- the correct term would be "contractually".

 

[David Candy]

Under what legal principal does a third party claim that they are in contract to you. The only contract is between seller (the shop) and buyer (you). Under the Cash Boots Pharmacy case a shopkeeper merely invites offers. You make an offer, shopkeeper accepts. Contract made. There is no MS in the equation.

 

[David Candy]

It;s permanently deprive. Which is why joyriding isn't theft but unlawful use.

 

[Ian Merrithew]

[re: legal definition of "theft"]

It;s permanently deprive. Which is why joyriding isn't theft but
unlawful use.

Semantics. Just because the property gets returned to you doesn't mean
it wasn't stolen. I'm not entirely familiar with whether joyriding is
treated as a separate offense than auto theft in all/some jurisdictions.
Nor is it relevant to this discussion anyway.

Never the less, you didn't address the main point. Enforcing a contract
is a civil matter, and the word "theft" does not apply since that refers
to a criminal act. "Theft" doesn't even apply to copyright infringement
cases (despite what RIAA would have you believe). Thus, a violation of
the EULA that is not a violation of copyright law (*) is not illegal, and
it is certainly not theft; it is only a contractual violation. Do you
dispute this?

(*) - Pending determination of whether multiple installations for
private, noncommercial use would be regarded as a "fair use" under US
Copyright Law. The wording does not seem to forbid it, as kurttrail has
demonstrated time & time & time & time again .

 

[David Candy]

See my other post in this thread. In my state illegal use (of cars) got changed to theft by statue. But cars are usually a special case dur to people's irrational feelings towards a lump of metal..

[re: legal definition of "theft"]

It;s permanently deprive. Which is why joyriding isn't theft but
unlawful use.

Semantics. Just because the property gets returned to you doesn't mean
it wasn't stolen. I'm not entirely familiar with whether joyriding is
treated as a separate offense than auto theft in all/some jurisdictions.
Nor is it relevant to this discussion anyway.

Never the less, you didn't address the main point. Enforcing a contract
is a civil matter, and the word "theft" does not apply since that refers
to a criminal act. "Theft" doesn't even apply to copyright infringement
cases (despite what RIAA would have you believe). Thus, a violation of
the EULA that is not a violation of copyright law (*) is not illegal, and
it is certainly not theft; it is only a contractual violation. Do you
dispute this?

(*) - Pending determination of whether multiple installations for
private, noncommercial use would be regarded as a "fair use" under US
Copyright Law. The wording does not seem to forbid it, as kurttrail has
demonstrated time & time & time & time again .

 

[Gavin Horricks]

This is stupid.

Is is 'wrong' to take something or use something that requires a payment to
do so. Or of course where you don't have permission from the (copyright)
owner.

Although - Legally, we all know that there are millions of loopholes all
over the world that can just about cover anything... Isn't that right OJ?

Gav

See my other post in this thread. In my state illegal use (of cars) got
changed to theft by statue. But cars are usually a special case dur to
people's irrational feelings towards a lump of metal..

[re: legal definition of "theft"]

It;s permanently deprive. Which is why joyriding isn't theft but
unlawful use.

Semantics. Just because the property gets returned to you doesn't mean
it wasn't stolen. I'm not entirely familiar with whether joyriding is
treated as a separate offense than auto theft in all/some jurisdictions.
Nor is it relevant to this discussion anyway.

Never the less, you didn't address the main point. Enforcing a contract
is a civil matter, and the word "theft" does not apply since that refers
to a criminal act. "Theft" doesn't even apply to copyright infringement
cases (despite what RIAA would have you believe). Thus, a violation of
the EULA that is not a violation of copyright law (*) is not illegal, and
it is certainly not theft; it is only a contractual violation. Do you
dispute this?

(*) - Pending determination of whether multiple installations for
private, noncommercial use would be regarded as a "fair use" under US
Copyright Law. The wording does not seem to forbid it, as kurttrail has
demonstrated time & time & time & time again .

 

[Ian Merrithew]

Is is 'wrong' to take something or use something that requires a
payment to do so. Or of course where you don't have permission from
the (copyright) owner.

I can't agree with the second part of the statement as it's too explicit.
There are many uses of copyrighted material that do *not* require the
permission of the copyright holder. Making a second installation of a
software program you've already legally purchased on a computer you own,
for private, noncommercial use, I would argue (and kurttrail has), *is*
such a "fair use".

And I see nobody disagrees that the terms "theft" and "legally" do not
apply to EULA violations -- or, to be more accurate, y'all ran & hid from
that point.

 

[Ron Martell]

I can't agree with the second part of the statement as it's too explicit.
There are many uses of copyrighted material that do *not* require the
permission of the copyright holder. Making a second installation of a
software program you've already legally purchased on a computer you own,
for private, noncommercial use, I would argue (and kurttrail has), *is*
such a "fair use".

You would lose that argument in pretty much any court.


The doctrine of FAIR USE is described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole, and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work."


Note wording of (3), clearly implying that the primary intent of the
"fair use" doctrine is with respect to *portions* of a copyrighted
work, such as a paragraph from a newspaper article, a page from a
book, a few bars from a song, etc.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."