XP licence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan
  • Start date Start date
D

Dan

Hi, just wondering if I can put my registered copy of XP
onto another pc I own and intend to keep in my house
without violating licencing laws etc?
Dan
 
There are no laws to stop you, technically, but if you want to comply with
the MS Eula(end user license agreement), then a single license/copy of xp
can only be installed on one computer at a time. You must purchse another
license/copy of xp for a second computer.
 
Yeah, along with 'my PC gives error message of Remote Call
Procedure and then shuts down'!

Mack
 
Plus "OE denies access to the following unsafe attachment" and "How do I
tell whether I've got 32 bit or 64 bit" and "can't customize Outlook today"!
 
You are infected with the Blaster worm virus.



To stop the rebooting/shutdowns, right click on the task bar, choose task
manager, processes tab, look for msblast.exe. Highlight it and click end
process. Then turn on the xp firewall.

To turn on the firewall: control panel, network and internet connections,
network connections, right click your connection, properties, advanced tab,
check the protect my computer box. Do this as quickly as you can once the
desktop comes up. Then visit the sites below for the removal and patch info.

Symantec: removal info and removal tool
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.blaster.worm.html

Also make sure to follow the links to the Microsoft pages for the patch or
visit windows update for the patch after you remove it.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=823980

http://www.microsoft.com/security/incident/blast.asp
 
Yeah, RPC is # 1 with all the posters. Lot's of copied
and pasted answers, but few tell them how to shut it down
to get the updates and all the info they want them to read.
 
oh, I forgot to make a exception for you Purp, you are a
good one. Must not want to be in the running for a
MVP....lol
 
LOL thanks, - no mvp for me. I like to "tell it like it is" and be a good
tech on top of it. I just like to help and learn, I don't need a "title".
(not sure what I'd say if they offered, maybe if they paid me - lol).
 
Greetings --

No.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems, it's
necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws,
if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on
which it is installed. The only way in which WinXP licensing differs
from that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally
added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation,
to prevent (or at least make more difficult) multiple installations
using a single license.


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
 
Which law? Can you quote the law that says it's illegal to install xp on
multiple computers? You mean to tell me they wrote a law just for MS and
installing windows. Not likely......
And don't give me copyright law cause no where in any copyright law does it
say windows can't be installed on multiple computers. The only "law" is in
MS's head -- ie: their eula, which has yet to be determined if it is even a
binding contract or not.
 
Dan said:
Hi, just wondering if I can put my registered copy of XP
onto another pc I own and intend to keep in my house
without violating licencing laws
Click to expand...

It is contrary to the contract set out in the licensing agreement, which
is for installation of one copy on one machine only. As it has been for
windows for over ten years - hence the Product Activation system to stop
it.
 
Which law? Can you quote the law that says it's illegal to install xp on
multiple computers? You mean to tell me they wrote a law just for MS and
installing windows. Not likely......
And don't give me copyright law cause no where in any copyright law does it
say windows can't be installed on multiple computers. The only "law" is in
MS's head -- ie: their eula, which has yet to be determined if it is even a
binding contract or not.
Click to expand...

No law directly, but a law that give MS the right to restrict use of
their product to certain conditions, not that I can quote you that law
either. So, in short, you wouldn't be breaking the law, but breaching
your contract to use the software (AKA the EULA).
 
Gary Tait said:
No law directly, but a law that give MS the right to restrict use of
their product to certain conditions, not that I can quote you that law
either. So, in short, you wouldn't be breaking the law, but breaching
your contract to use the software (AKA the EULA).
Click to expand...
Ok, that I agree with. (as long as someone can prove the eula is a binding
contract, which has never been done)
 
Greetings --

To date, the EULA has not been successfully challenged in court,
so I'd say that indicates it's a legitimate contract.

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
 
Wouldn't MS have to initiate the case? It's never been successfully
challenged because no consumer can bring the case, and why would they want
to, there's no need. MS has to bring it for breach of contract against the
consumer and that has never happened. The eula has never been proven in a
court of law to be binding. And yes I agree it has never been proven to be
not binding either. So that to me says it's a piece of paper with writing on
it that has yet to be proven its a contract or not. I can't just blindly
acknowledge its a contract when it has never been proven either way.
 
Greetings --

Not necessarily. For Microsoft (or any other huge corporation) to
go after one or more individual consumers would, regardless of the
legal merits of the case, be a serious public relations "faux pas," to
state it mildly. The commercial backlash could be substantial. (Just
look at how much the RIAA has endeared itself to the public and the
media by suing children.) Besides, by implementing WPA, Microsoft has
pretty much done all it reasonably needs to do to enforce its license
terms. Granted, WPA doesn't deter the determined software pirate, but
neither do car and house door locks deter a determined burglar. On
the other hand, the casual piracy that's always been the result of
intellectual laziness (can't be bothered to read the EULA) or the fact
that there was no enforcement mechanism (sadly, all too many people
are honest only when there's a chance of being caught) has been
greatly reduced.

I think the most telling fact is that the Department of
Justice, and many states' Attorneys General, when trying to sue and
penalize Microsoft for alleged monopolistic practices, never once
raised the issue of a purportedly unfair or unenforceable licensing
practice. If all of those high-powered lawyers, all of whom were
strongly motivated politically to be seen as giant-slayers and get a
chunk of Microsoft change for their respective governments, couldn't
find anything objectionable in Microsoft's EULAs, I'm inclined to
believe that it's valid.

To my thinking, this clearly places the ball in the court of the
EULA-whiners. They claim that the EULA is nonsense and that they're
entitled to install the product on as many PCs as they like, but not
one of them has had the courage of his convictions and sued Microsoft
because the WPA is preventing their "fair use" of the product. To
date, as far as I know, they haven't even been able to produce a
single quote from any lawyer, much less one well-versed in copyright
law, to the affect that there's anything wrong with Microsoft's EULA.
Personally, I think it's long past time for them to "put up or shut
up."


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


purplehaz said:
Wouldn't MS have to initiate the case?
Click to expand...

Snipped....
 
Bruce Chambers said:
Greetings --

Not necessarily. For Microsoft (or any other huge corporation) to
go after one or more individual consumers would, regardless of the
legal merits of the case, be a serious public relations "faux pas," to
state it mildly. The commercial backlash could be substantial. (Just
look at how much the RIAA has endeared itself to the public and the
media by suing children.) Besides, by implementing WPA, Microsoft has
pretty much done all it reasonably needs to do to enforce its license
terms. Granted, WPA doesn't deter the determined software pirate, but
neither do car and house door locks deter a determined burglar. On
the other hand, the casual piracy that's always been the result of
intellectual laziness (can't be bothered to read the EULA) or the fact
that there was no enforcement mechanism (sadly, all too many people
are honest only when there's a chance of being caught) has been
greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

I agree.
I think the most telling fact is that the Department of
Justice, and many states' Attorneys General, when trying to sue and
penalize Microsoft for alleged monopolistic practices, never once
raised the issue of a purportedly unfair or unenforceable licensing
practice. If all of those high-powered lawyers, all of whom were
strongly motivated politically to be seen as giant-slayers and get a
chunk of Microsoft change for their respective governments, couldn't
find anything objectionable in Microsoft's EULAs, I'm inclined to
believe that it's valid.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... very interesting point. You would think some eagar lawyer would just
love to sink his teeth into MS, but none have.
To my thinking, this clearly places the ball in the court of the
EULA-whiners. They claim that the EULA is nonsense and that they're
entitled to install the product on as many PCs as they like, but not
one of them has had the courage of his convictions and sued Microsoft
because the WPA is preventing their "fair use" of the product. To
date, as far as I know, they haven't even been able to produce a
single quote from any lawyer, much less one well-versed in copyright
law, to the affect that there's anything wrong with Microsoft's EULA.
Personally, I think it's long past time for them to "put up or shut
up."
Click to expand...

Boy I sure wish someone would do something so we can end the debates. I
always try to tell people to follow the eula, I don't condon pirating, and I
hardly ever go into the fair use debates. I just am dam curious as to if
this eula is really valid or not. I've heard good points on both sides of
the fence, read articles that swayed me one way, then read another and you
sway back. I read lots of legal stuff, some I dont understand and what I've
come up with is... I don't know. Maybe some day the court will settle it.
 
Greetings --

Yes, you're quite right about our having to wait and see if a
court will ever "finally" settle the matter. I somehow think the
debate will rage on, nevertheless. ;-}

In the meantime, I regard observing the EULA as a simple matter of
integrity. It doesn't really matter to me whether the EULA is
"legally" binding or not. The simple fact is that by clicking
"Accept" and continuing the installation I've agreed to be bound by
its terms. I know that my attitude may be somewhat old-fashioned, but
my "word" means something to me. If I can't be relied upon to keep
that "promise," how can my given word or signature on a contract ever
again be trusted? To me, integrity means doing the right thing even
when no one is watching.


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


purplehaz said:
I agree.


Hmmm... very interesting point. You would think some eagar lawyer would just
love to sink his teeth into MS, but none have.

Boy I sure wish someone would do something so we can end the debates. I
always try to tell people to follow the eula, I don't condon pirating, and I
hardly ever go into the fair use debates. I just am dam curious as to if
this eula is really valid or not. I've heard good points on both sides of
the fence, read articles that swayed me one way, then read another and you
sway back. I read lots of legal stuff, some I dont understand and what I've
come up with is... I don't know. Maybe some day the court will
Click to expand...
settle it.
 
Back
Top