S
Stargazer49
It seems I can't activate xp after a reinstall. Has
anyone had this problem? If so what can be done. Thanks.
anyone had this problem? If so what can be done. Thanks.
J
Jason
* Stargazer49 said:
I beleive you have to call MS to get it reactivated as you've already
activated it once.
Jason
C
Chris Lanier
Greetings
Not a problem. As long as it the same PC select "activate by phone", call
Microsoft can explain what happened.
Not a problem. As long as it the same PC select "activate by phone", call
Microsoft can explain what happened.
K
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!"
And if it's not on the same PC, it's still not a problem, read:
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
--
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!"
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!"
Chris said:
And if it's not on the same PC, it's still not a problem, read:
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
--
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!"
M
Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)
There's no limitation on how often you can activate on the same hardware nor
is there threshold after which you can only activate by phone. If however,
there have been changes to the system, when trying to activate over the
Internet, the user will usually be presented with an option to activate by
phone.
is there threshold after which you can only activate by phone. If however,
there have been changes to the system, when trying to activate over the
Internet, the user will usually be presented with an option to activate by
phone.
M
Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)
You know, Kurt, according to the Digital Millennium Act of which you are
often fond of citing, the information in that article falls under the topic
of defeating antipiracy-anticopying "technology," something expressly
forbidden in the act notwithstanding any other inconstancies in the act.
often fond of citing, the information in that article falls under the topic
of defeating antipiracy-anticopying "technology," something expressly
forbidden in the act notwithstanding any other inconstancies in the act.
K
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!"
That's an opinion that would have to proven in a court of law, but I
doubt MS would have the balls to pursue it, because I would have a very
good "Free Speech" argument, especially since I don't use any
technology, only common sense, to help other individuals how to protect
their rights to their copy of software from MS's copy-protection. This
would definitely not be a good case to test the DMCA, and the "Free
Speech" defense wouldn't be my only argument, but I'll play those cards
only if I'm called. ;-)
I would really love to have the opportunity to try to prove that the
DMCA is unconstitutional.
--
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!"
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!"
You know, Kurt, according to the Digital Millennium Act of which you
are often fond of citing, the information in that article falls under
the topic of defeating antipiracy-anticopying "technology," something
expressly forbidden in the act notwithstanding any other
inconstancies in the act.
That's an opinion that would have to proven in a court of law, but I
doubt MS would have the balls to pursue it, because I would have a very
good "Free Speech" argument, especially since I don't use any
technology, only common sense, to help other individuals how to protect
their rights to their copy of software from MS's copy-protection. This
would definitely not be a good case to test the DMCA, and the "Free
Speech" defense wouldn't be my only argument, but I'll play those cards
only if I'm called. ;-)
I would really love to have the opportunity to try to prove that the
DMCA is unconstitutional.
--
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!"
M
Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)
I wasn't suggesting that you had liability, I was suggesting that utilizing
the information might place a person in violation. In the 1960s, there was
a handbook published that described how to make Molotov Cocktails, among
other things that might be used in Civil Disobedience. As I recall, the
courts ruled the book was legal, that would seem to remove liability from
you or the author of the page (If you were the author, Kurt, sorry, I didn't
look-LOL). However, that wouldn't remove liability of someone who actually
used it to circumvent code or other technology designed with the express
purposes of preventing piracy.
the information might place a person in violation. In the 1960s, there was
a handbook published that described how to make Molotov Cocktails, among
other things that might be used in Civil Disobedience. As I recall, the
courts ruled the book was legal, that would seem to remove liability from
you or the author of the page (If you were the author, Kurt, sorry, I didn't
look-LOL). However, that wouldn't remove liability of someone who actually
used it to circumvent code or other technology designed with the express
purposes of preventing piracy.
K
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!"
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or
defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this
title." - DMCA
--
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!"
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!"
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or
defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this
title." - DMCA
--
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!"
G
Gary Tait
Then again, people have been sue for releasing infromation regarding
hacking satellite TV, and lost on using the 1at Ammendment argiment.
IMO, any speech educadting to steal is not covered by free speech.
K
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!"
I'm not educating nor advocating theft, only showing why legally MS's
rules aren't applicable for private non-commercial use, "fair use."
But even accepting that MS's EULA terms are legally enforceable on
private anonymous individuals, without any legal precedent to back it
up, breaking the terms of an agreement is NOT stealing! Stealing is a
criminal offence, and at most breaking the terms of any contract is only
enforceable in a civil court.
That's why most people don't believe you MicroMorons when you call
installing legally purchased software, stealing. I don't know anybody
that's getting rich on installing copies of MS software, that was
legally sold to them, on more than one computer. But MS has nearly $52
billion in liquid assets, and that's on top of all their legal
settlements, the losses that MS has been suffering in their non-software
divisions, research & development budget, all their plant assets,
stockholder dividends, and on top of all the real software piracy that
happening over in the Asian market, where pirating software is done
practically with the acceptance of their governments.
So who is really stealing for whom? Looks to me, on the available
evidense, that MS is fleecing their paying customers, by using their
monopoly position to get an unfair return for their retail copyrighted
material.
"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 t
o 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
--
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!"
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!"
Gary said:
I'm not educating nor advocating theft, only showing why legally MS's
rules aren't applicable for private non-commercial use, "fair use."
But even accepting that MS's EULA terms are legally enforceable on
private anonymous individuals, without any legal precedent to back it
up, breaking the terms of an agreement is NOT stealing! Stealing is a
criminal offence, and at most breaking the terms of any contract is only
enforceable in a civil court.
That's why most people don't believe you MicroMorons when you call
installing legally purchased software, stealing. I don't know anybody
that's getting rich on installing copies of MS software, that was
legally sold to them, on more than one computer. But MS has nearly $52
billion in liquid assets, and that's on top of all their legal
settlements, the losses that MS has been suffering in their non-software
divisions, research & development budget, all their plant assets,
stockholder dividends, and on top of all the real software piracy that
happening over in the Asian market, where pirating software is done
practically with the acceptance of their governments.
So who is really stealing for whom? Looks to me, on the available
evidense, that MS is fleecing their paying customers, by using their
monopoly position to get an unfair return for their retail copyrighted
material.
"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 t
o 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
--
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!"
A
Alex Nichol
Stargazer49 said:
If you have done a format and new setup, you should be able to get on
the net and go to
Start - All Programs - Accessories - System Tools - Activate Windows
If the hardware is not grossly different from last time, it will go
through there in seconds - if not you will have to use the 'Phone'
option to call a toll free number that will be given
If the activation gives difficulty, though, it may be something you
installed after (and before trying to activate) has interfered with the
files used There are some things do this - XP Anti-Spy is an example -
and you have to go to Start - Run and run the lines
regsvr32 licdll.dll
regsvr32 regwizc.dll
to put them right