MS says pirating is illegal, but are their PA rules illegal?

[PCyr]

Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or

"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

[Larc]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:08:44 -0400, PCyr pondered exceedingly, then took quill in
hand and carefully composed...

| Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the following is true:
| MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
|
| The law says:
| "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
|
| (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
computer program provided:
|
| (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
|
| (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
|
| MS Says:
|
| The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions:
|
| Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs
|
| (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided:
|
| (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or
|
| "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"
|
|
| So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and Product Activation?

All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy of your XP install CD.
It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second computer. Microsoft has
never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the install copy of XP I would
use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in. The
original CD is stored for safekeeping.

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

[D.Currie]

What you've quoted discusses making a copy of the software, which has
nothing to do with WPA. You make a copy of the CD, put it in your safe, and
that's that. Activation doesn't come into play when you're making a copy of
the disk.

Or is there some other point here that I've missed?


"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the
following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using
MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. -
It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another
installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
used in no other manner, or

"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to
say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

[Robert Moir]

This is talking about making copies of the software installation media, not
day to day running of the software.


"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the
following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using
MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. -
It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another
installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
used in no other manner, or

"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to
say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

[rifleman]

In article >,
says...
> Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the following is true:
> MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that c
omputer program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> MS Says:
>
> The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions:
>
> Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided:
>
> (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"
>
>
> So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and Product Activation?
> And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
> As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy for home and private use"?
>
> I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.
>
>
The confusion exists because you, the licensee, are NOT the "Owner" of
the software. Microsoft is. You are only given a "license to use".
--
(I may be wrong...I usually am....)
Google is your Friend
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam:
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk

[Harry Ohrn]

Microsoft hires a bevy of highly paid and highly skilled lawyers. You could
however take the EULA into a high price corporate law firm and see what they
have to say about it if you think you can make a case. Just remember to
bring your platinum card 8^)

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell\User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the
following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using
MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. -
It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another
installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
used in no other manner, or

"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to
say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

[PCyr]

Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created
as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Larc" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:08:44 -0400, PCyr pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in
> hand and carefully composed...
>
> | Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if
the following is true:
> | MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
> |
> | The law says:
> | "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs
> |
> | (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
> |
> | (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or
> |
> | (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
> |
> | MS Says:
> |
> | The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using MS's own definitions:
> |
> | Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights
of Copyright Owners: Computer programs
> |
> | (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to
make another installation provided:
> |
> | (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making
use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it
is used in no other manner, or
> |
> | "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"
> |
> |
> | So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA,
and Product Activation?
>
> All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy of your XP install
CD.
> It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second computer.
Microsoft has
> never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the install copy of XP I
would
> use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in.
The
> original CD is stored for safekeeping.
>
> Larc
>
>
>
> §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

[PCyr]

Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created
as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Robert Moir" > wrote in message
...
> This is talking about making copies of the software installation media,
not
> day to day running of the software.
>
>
> "PCyr" > wrote in message
> ...
> Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if
the
> following is true:
> MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
> rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for
> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making
of
> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
> the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
> that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that
> all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of
> the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> MS Says:
>
> The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using
> MS's own definitions:
>
> Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
> Copyright Owners: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. -
> It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another
> installation provided:
>
> (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
> of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
> used in no other manner, or
>
> "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that
> all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of
> the computer program should cease to be rightful"
>
>
> So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
> Product Activation?
> And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
> As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in
to
> say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
> for home and private use"?
>
> I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.
>
> --
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
> self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
>
>

[PCyr]

Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created
as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"D.Currie" > wrote in message
...
> What you've quoted discusses making a copy of the software, which has
> nothing to do with WPA. You make a copy of the CD, put it in your safe,
and
> that's that. Activation doesn't come into play when you're making a copy
of
> the disk.
>
> Or is there some other point here that I've missed?
>
>
> "PCyr" > wrote in message
> ...
> Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if
the
> following is true:
> MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
> rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for
> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making
of
> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
> the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
> that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that
> all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of
> the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> MS Says:
>
> The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using
> MS's own definitions:
>
> Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
> Copyright Owners: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. -
> It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another
> installation provided:
>
> (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
> of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
> used in no other manner, or
>
> "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that
> all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of
> the computer program should cease to be rightful"
>
>
> So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
> Product Activation?
> And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
> As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in
to
> say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
> for home and private use"?
>
> I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.
>
> --
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
> self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
>
>

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
> use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created
> as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
> conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.
>

PCyr,

If you are in any doubt about the legality and enforcement of the EULA or
the use of any terms there in. I suggest rather then us all going around in
circles you do one of 2 things.

1. Take professional qualified legal advice
2. Contact Microsoft Legal and Corporate Affairs at the Head Office address
and ask your questions of them.

Advice sort in a peer to peer technical support forum will not be of sound
legal standing unless given by either a properly qualified individual or a
member of Microsoft LCA.

Also it was not necessary to cross post to so many unrelated forums.
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
> use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created
> as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
> conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.
>
> --
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
> self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
> "Larc" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:08:44 -0400, PCyr pondered exceedingly, then took
> quill in
> > hand and carefully composed...
> >
> > | Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm
if
> the following is true:
> > | MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
> > |
> > | The law says:
> > | "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
> rights: Computer programs
> > |
> > | (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for
> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making
of
> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
> > |
> > | (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential
step
> in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and
> that it is used in no other manner, or
> > |
> > | (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only
and
> that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
> > |
> > | MS Says:
> > |
> > | The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
> using MS's own definitions:
> > |
> > | Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights
> of Copyright Owners: Computer programs
> > |
> > | (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
> Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to
> make another installation provided:
> > |
> > | (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in
making
> use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that
it
> is used in no other manner, or
> > |
> > | "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only
and
> that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"
> > |
> > |
> > | So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA,
> and Product Activation?
> >
> > All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy of your XP
install
> CD.
> > It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second computer.
> Microsoft has
> > never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the install copy of XP
I
> would
> > use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in.
> The
> > original CD is stored for safekeeping.
> >
> > Larc
> >
> >
> >
> > §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§
>
>

[Robert Moir]

PCyr wrote:
> Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private
> home use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation
> is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer
> program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
> manner.

I'm well aware of that. None the less, my comments still stand as my
opinion. If you want to discuss the matter seriously you should certainly
take up Mike's advice too. I'm not a lawyer in my country let alone yours.

[george]

"Larc" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:08:44 -0400, PCyr pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in
> hand and carefully composed...
>
> | Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if
the following is true:
> | MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
> |
> | The law says:
> | "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs
<SNIP>
> All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy of your XP install
CD.
> It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second computer.
Microsoft has
> never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the install copy of XP I
would
> use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in.
The
> original CD is stored for safekeeping.
>
> Larc
>
> §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

"I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in"
Do you have a link telling how to do this??

thanks
George Girard, Programmer/FiddlerArounder,
Your Current Internet Information can be found here:
http://www.canufly.net/~georgegg/Your.Current.Internet.Information
http://www.canufly.net/~georgegg/dns/Dns.Whois.Nslookup

[Larc]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:57:47 GMT, george pondered exceedingly, then took quill
in hand and carefully composed...

| "I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in"
| Do you have a link telling how to do this??

Sure. Go to this page and look under Guide in the left column. You'll find
links to slipstreaming SP1 into XP and burning a bootable CD using EZ CD Creator
or Nero.

http://www.etplanet.com/

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

[David]

"PCyr" > wrote in
:

> Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private
> home use. Since the law says (1) that such a new copy or adaptation
> is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer
> program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
> manner.
>

The key word is "Essential" It is not essential in any way to install XP on
more then one machine in order to use it on one machine.

David

[george]

"Larc" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:57:47 GMT, george pondered exceedingly, then took
quill
> in hand and carefully composed...
>
> | "I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in"
> | Do you have a link telling how to do this??
>
> Sure. Go to this page and look under Guide in the left column. You'll
find
> links to slipstreaming SP1 into XP and burning a bootable CD using EZ CD
Creator
> or Nero.
>
> http://www.etplanet.com/
>
> Larc
>

Thanks, burning now :)
George

[Dan]

Not to get this topic to far off base, but can you=20
provide a link where I could get some info on how to=20
build one of these "slip streamed" cd's for myself?=20

new 'again" to windows, after a long time on Mac's, and=20
need to relearn so many new things, but I read about your=20
disk, and thought hey, there's a good idea : )

Dan
>
>All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy=20
of your XP install CD.
>It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second=20
computer. Microsoft has
>never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the=20
install copy of XP I would
>use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1=20
slipstreamed in. The
>original CD is stored for safekeeping.
>
>Larc
>
>
>
> =A7=A7=A7 - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-
mail - =A7=A7=A7
>.
>

[Richter]

http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=248

Matt


"Dan" > wrote in message
...

Not to get this topic to far off base, but can you
provide a link where I could get some info on how to
build one of these "slip streamed" cd's for myself?

new 'again" to windows, after a long time on Mac's, and
need to relearn so many new things, but I read about your
disk, and thought hey, there's a good idea : )

[Charles Kenyon]

I am a lawyer in the US. You are allowed to make a backup copy of your
installation disks under the copyright law.

You are not allowed to install on a different computer without being
licensed to do so. You are not the software owner but a licensee. Some
licenses do allow for installation on more than one computer; I have a
number of these licenses on MS products but they are not retail versions.
They are MS Partner versions not for resale. Retail licenses (not included
with computer purchase) allow you to move the license and install the
software on a different computer by uninstalling the software from your
original computer. MS Academic version software seems to be limited to a
single installation (can't move to different computer). Software distributed
with a new computer (OEM version) is limited to that computer.

--
Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory:
<URL: http://addbalance.com/word/index.htm>

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide)
<URL: http://addbalance.com/usersguide/index.htm>

See also the MVP FAQ: <URL: http://www.mvps.org/word/> which is awesome!
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
"PCyr" > wrote in message
...
Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the
following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using
MS's own definitions:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. -
It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another
installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
used in no other manner, or

"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to
say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

[David]

"Charles Kenyon" > wrote in
:

> I am a lawyer in the US. You are allowed to make a backup copy of your
> installation disks under the copyright law.
>

A lawyer?? We need to get you talking to Kurtail. :) He tries to
argue that the shrink-wrap license is invalid, and that "Fair Use" comes
into play. :)

David

[Greg P Rozelle]

>Software distributed with a new computer (OEM version) is limited to that computer.

My Eula for Encarta 96. Say's I can move their software to another
computer. (On the cd it says for distribution with a new pc.)
So which is correct?

I think if you have CD software that came with another computer and
that computer is trashed or cant use. I think you should be able to
use the software on another computer. I don't mean the operating
system.

Most software that comes with a computer can be downloaded anyway.

I would also like to ask the lawyer what he thinks of the activation
issues but his answer(s) might be deleted by Microsoft.




Disclaimer
My advice is as-is. It could trash your system.

[Larc]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:34:32 GMT, Greg P Rozelle pondered exceedingly, then took
quill in hand and carefully composed...

| >Software distributed with a new computer (OEM version) is limited to that computer.
|
| My Eula for Encarta 96. Say's I can move their software to another
| computer. (On the cd it says for distribution with a new pc.)
| So which is correct?

Whichever benefits you the most. Since the burden of proof falls on whoever
writes such rules, any inconsistency or loophole can be safely taken advantage
of.

What they mean never counts as much as what they say!

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

[Frank]

Charles Kenyon wrote:

| I am a lawyer in the US. You are allowed to make a backup copy of your
| installation disks under the copyright law.
|
| You are not allowed to install on a different computer without being
| licensed to do so. You are not the software owner but a licensee. Some
| licenses do allow for installation on more than one computer; I have a
| number of these licenses on MS products but they are not retail
| versions. They are MS Partner versions not for resale. Retail
| licenses (not included with computer purchase) allow you to move the
| license and install the software on a different computer by
| uninstalling the software from your original computer. MS Academic
| version software seems to be limited to a single installation (can't
| move to different computer). Software distributed with a new computer
| (OEM version) is limited to that computer.
|
| --
| Charles Kenyon

Finally no urban ledgends or guessing or my neighbors dog said the
cat said.



--
Tampa Bay