Loading XP onto multiple computers

[Paul]

Hey,
Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
many times can you load XP onto how many different
machines? Anyone know?
Thanks,
PH

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In ,
Paul > typed:

> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> machines? Anyone know?


No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
license) for each computer.

There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
enforcement mechanism.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

[R. McCarty]

Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few people
do the second install only to be faced with the activation failure.
After years of multiple installs on a single OS license, it's sort of
a rude awakening to discover product activation.


"Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Paul > typed:
>
> > Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> > ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> > computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> > many times can you load XP onto how many different
> > machines? Anyone know?
>
>
> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> license) for each computer.
>
> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> enforcement mechanism.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In ,
Paul > typed:

> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> machines? Anyone know?


No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
license) for each computer.

There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
enforcement mechanism.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

[R. McCarty]

Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few people
do the second install only to be faced with the activation failure.
After years of multiple installs on a single OS license, it's sort of
a rude awakening to discover product activation.


"Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Paul > typed:
>
> > Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> > ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> > computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> > many times can you load XP onto how many different
> > machines? Anyone know?
>
>
> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> license) for each computer.
>
> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> enforcement mechanism.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

[kurttrail]

R. McCarty wrote:

> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In ,
> > Paul > typed:
> >
> > > Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> > > ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> > > computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> > > many times can you load XP onto how many different
> > > machines? Anyone know?
> >
> >
> > No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> > license) for each computer.
> >
> > There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> > been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> > 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> > enforcement mechanism.
> >
>
> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few people
> do the second install only to be faced with the activation failure.
> After years of multiple installs on a single OS license, it's sort of
> a rude awakening to discover product activation.
>
>

An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory monopolist,
or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as demonstrated
by Carey Frisch [MVP]
http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/

--
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!"

[kurttrail]

R. McCarty wrote:

> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In ,
> > Paul > typed:
> >
> > > Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> > > ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> > > computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> > > many times can you load XP onto how many different
> > > machines? Anyone know?
> >
> >
> > No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> > license) for each computer.
> >
> > There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> > been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> > 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> > enforcement mechanism.
> >
>
> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few people
> do the second install only to be faced with the activation failure.
> After years of multiple installs on a single OS license, it's sort of
> a rude awakening to discover product activation.
>
>

An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory monopolist,
or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as demonstrated
by Carey Frisch [MVP]
http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/

--
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!"

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

You'll need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer
on which you install it.

First of all, you probably have an OEM license for WinXP on
the work PC. An OEM version must be sold with a piece of hardware
(normally a motherboard or hard rive, if not an entire PC) and is
_permanently_ bound to the first PC on which it's installed. An OEM
license, once installed, is not legally transferable to another
computer under _any_ circumstances.

Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and
U.S. copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if
not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on
which it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law
to determine final applicability in your locale.) 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:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Hey,
> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> machines? Anyone know?
> Thanks,
> PH

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>

<Snipped the MicroPropaganda>


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.

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"

Installation -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=adaptation

made -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=created

necessary -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=essential

making use -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=utilize

together with -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=conjunction

a previously unknown -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861582871

or -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=or

--
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!"

[kurttrail]

R. McCarty wrote:

> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In ,
> > Paul > typed:
> >
> > > Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> > > ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> > > computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> > > many times can you load XP onto how many different
> > > machines? Anyone know?
> >
> >
> > No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> > license) for each computer.
> >
> > There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> > been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> > 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> > enforcement mechanism.
> >
>
> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few people
> do the second install only to be faced with the activation failure.
> After years of multiple installs on a single OS license, it's sort of
> a rude awakening to discover product activation.
>
>

An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory monopolist,
or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as demonstrated
by Carey Frisch [MVP]
http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/

--
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!"

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

You'll need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer
on which you install it.

First of all, you probably have an OEM license for WinXP on
the work PC. An OEM version must be sold with a piece of hardware
(normally a motherboard or hard rive, if not an entire PC) and is
_permanently_ bound to the first PC on which it's installed. An OEM
license, once installed, is not legally transferable to another
computer under _any_ circumstances.

Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and
U.S. copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if
not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on
which it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law
to determine final applicability in your locale.) 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:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Hey,
> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> machines? Anyone know?
> Thanks,
> PH

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>

<Snipped the MicroPropaganda>


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.

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"

Installation -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=adaptation

made -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=created

necessary -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=essential

making use -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=utilize

together with -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=conjunction

a previously unknown -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861582871

or -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=or

--
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!"

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Thanks for proving my point. The law permits one to install a
_single_ copy, and to make one archival copy.

(But you needn't have included your laughably crude attempt to
re-write the law to fit your fantasies; I've already seen your parody
web site and this is the sort of humor that's only funny once.)

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"kurttrail" > wrote in
message ...
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
> > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> >
>
> <Snipped the MicroPropaganda>
>
>
> 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.
>
> The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using
> MS's own definitions:
>
Cute and mildly amusing the first time; sadly, this isn't the sort
of humor that wears well. Now try using the definitions that the
legislators used when they wrote it.

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Thanks for proving my point. The law permits one to install a
_single_ copy, and to make one archival copy.

(But you needn't have included your laughably crude attempt to
re-write the law to fit your fantasies; I've already seen your parody
web site and this is the sort of humor that's only funny once.)

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"kurttrail" > wrote in
message ...
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
> > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> >
>
> <Snipped the MicroPropaganda>
>
>
> 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.
>
> The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using
> MS's own definitions:
>
Cute and mildly amusing the first time; sadly, this isn't the sort
of humor that wears well. Now try using the definitions that the
legislators used when they wrote it.

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

You'll need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer
on which you install it.

First of all, you probably have an OEM license for WinXP on
the work PC. An OEM version must be sold with a piece of hardware
(normally a motherboard or hard rive, if not an entire PC) and is
_permanently_ bound to the first PC on which it's installed. An OEM
license, once installed, is not legally transferable to another
computer under _any_ circumstances.

Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and
U.S. copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if
not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on
which it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law
to determine final applicability in your locale.) 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:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Hey,
> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> machines? Anyone know?
> Thanks,
> PH

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> "kurttrail" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Bruce Chambers wrote:
> >
> > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> > >
> >
> > <Snipped the MicroPropaganda>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
> > using MS's own definitions:
> >
> Cute and mildly amusing the first time; sadly, this isn't the sort
> of humor that wears well. Now try using the definitions that the
> legislators used when they wrote it.

> Greetings --
>
> Thanks for proving my point. The law permits one to install a
> _single_ copy, and to make one archival copy.
>

*ADDITIONAL*! How do you make an additional adaption without a previous one
already existing?

So Bruce-baby, how in the world do you rationalize that Section 117 only
"permits one to install a _single_ copy?"

I'll accept as an explanation that you just skip over the words you don't
want to read, because they don't fit into your twisted perception of
reality.

> (But you needn't have included your laughably crude attempt to
> re-write the law to fit your fantasies; I've already seen your parody
> web site and this is the sort of humor that's only funny once.)

Don't worry, Bruce. I'll find the appropriate way to lampoon you on my site
yet, but until then:

http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/

Just make believe that it says Bruce Chambers instead of Carey Frisch. You
are really good at "make believe" so this you be a walk in the park for you.

--
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!"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>

<Snipped the MicroPropaganda>


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.

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"

Installation -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=adaptation

made -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=created

necessary -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=essential

making use -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=utilize

together with -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=conjunction

a previously unknown -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861582871

or -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=or

--
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!"

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Thanks for proving my point. The law permits one to install a
_single_ copy, and to make one archival copy.

(But you needn't have included your laughably crude attempt to
re-write the law to fit your fantasies; I've already seen your parody
web site and this is the sort of humor that's only funny once.)

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"kurttrail" > wrote in
message ...
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
> > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> >
>
> <Snipped the MicroPropaganda>
>
>
> 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.
>
> The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using
> MS's own definitions:
>
Cute and mildly amusing the first time; sadly, this isn't the sort
of humor that wears well. Now try using the definitions that the
legislators used when they wrote it.

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> "kurttrail" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Bruce Chambers wrote:
> >
> > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
> > >
> >
> > <Snipped the MicroPropaganda>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
> > using MS's own definitions:
> >
> Cute and mildly amusing the first time; sadly, this isn't the sort
> of humor that wears well. Now try using the definitions that the
> legislators used when they wrote it.

> Greetings --
>
> Thanks for proving my point. The law permits one to install a
> _single_ copy, and to make one archival copy.
>

*ADDITIONAL*! How do you make an additional adaption without a previous one
already existing?

So Bruce-baby, how in the world do you rationalize that Section 117 only
"permits one to install a _single_ copy?"

I'll accept as an explanation that you just skip over the words you don't
want to read, because they don't fit into your twisted perception of
reality.

> (But you needn't have included your laughably crude attempt to
> re-write the law to fit your fantasies; I've already seen your parody
> web site and this is the sort of humor that's only funny once.)

Don't worry, Bruce. I'll find the appropriate way to lampoon you on my site
yet, but until then:

http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/

Just make believe that it says Bruce Chambers instead of Carey Frisch. You
are really good at "make believe" so this you be a walk in the park for you.

--
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!"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

<snipped part covered in previous post>

> "kurttrail" > wrote in
> >
> > The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
> > using MS's own definitions:
> >
> Cute and mildly amusing the first time; sadly, this isn't the sort
> of humor that wears well. Now try using the definitions that the
> legislators used when they wrote it.

Dissing the definitions of words from Encarta? You do know MS owns Encarta,
don't ya', Brucey-baby?

--
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!"

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

I understand "additional" much better than you seem to. Let's do
the math, shall we?Copy # 1 = newly purchased WinXP installation CD in
package. Additional copy = WinXP installation on hard drive. The
only other "additional" copy beyond this, permitted by the very law
you're so fond of quoting (but not understanding, apparently), is the
archived backup.

Otherwise, I see that you've not learned any new rationalizations
since your purported arguments were first publicly refuted and
demonstrated to be completely specious and erroneous roughly two years
ago. You know, an "instrument" that can only play a single note gets
awfully tiresome after a while. And I see you still fall back on
name-calling and/or personal insults, as well, when your "arguments"
fail to make a convert. (I presume that that's the nature of the dead
link you included.) You're really in quite a rut, you know. Perhaps
I'll put you back in the kill-file for a couple more years, to prevent
tedium, checking once in a while to see if you've anything new to
offer, as unlikely as that seems, at this point.


Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH


"kurttrail" > wrote in
message ...
>
> *ADDITIONAL*! How do you make an additional adaption without a
previous one
> already existing?
>
> So Bruce-baby, how in the world do you rationalize that Section 117
only
> "permits one to install a _single_ copy?"
>
>
> Don't worry, Bruce. I'll find the appropriate way to lampoon you on
my site
> yet, but until then:
>
>

[Michael Stevens]

kurttrail wrote:
> R. McCarty wrote:
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In ,
>>> Paul > typed:
>>>
>>>> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
>>>> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
>>>> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
>>>> many times can you load XP onto how many different
>>>> machines? Anyone know?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
>>> license) for each computer.
>>>
>>> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
>>> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
>>> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
>>> enforcement mechanism.
>>>
>>
>> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
>> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
>> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
>> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few people
>> do the second install only to be faced with the activation failure.
>> After years of multiple installs on a single OS license, it's sort of
>> a rude awakening to discover product activation.
>>
>>
>
> An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory
> monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust
> http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
>
> What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
> exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as
> demonstrated by Carey Frisch [MVP]
> http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/

You do realize you are guilty of doing the same as who you accuse? You do
not have a definitive ruling to back up your opinion and you are too afraid
to commit your resources or risk you losing the FUD value of your opinion.
Who is the real sucker?
I certainly don't believe the sucker is either the consumers that adheres to
your opinion of the EULA or the EULA as defined in the agreement necessary
to complete the setup of XP. How can you define something that has no real
definition?
A convicted monopolist, copyright owner and developer of software still has
the right to charge for their non-monopolistic products. You seem in my
opinion to lump PA in as a perceived byproduct of monopolistic behavior, but
it is not monopolistic. It may be annoying and flawed, but not monopolistic.
PA is the equivalent of department store security cameras and guards to
reduce the theft of merchandise by people that think they deserve more than
they pay for. The accomplished shoplifter, informed software thief or fair
rights fanatic will always find a way to achieve their goals.

--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> I understand "additional" much better than you seem to. Let's do
> the math, shall we?Copy # 1 = newly purchased WinXP installation CD in
> package. Additional copy = WinXP installation on hard drive. The
> only other "additional" copy beyond this, permitted by the very law
> you're so fond of quoting (but not understanding, apparently), is the
> archived backup.
>
> Otherwise, I see that you've not learned any new rationalizations
> since your purported arguments were first publicly refuted and
> demonstrated to be completely specious and erroneous roughly two years
> ago. You know, an "instrument" that can only play a single note gets
> awfully tiresome after a while. And I see you still fall back on
> name-calling and/or personal insults, as well, when your "arguments"
> fail to make a convert. (I presume that that's the nature of the dead
> link you included.) You're really in quite a rut, you know. Perhaps
> I'll put you back in the kill-file for a couple more years, to prevent
> tedium, checking once in a while to see if you've anything new to
> offer, as unlikely as that seems, at this point.
>
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> "kurttrail" > wrote in
> message ...
> >
> > *ADDITIONAL*! How do you make an additional adaption without a
> > previous one already existing?
> >
> > So Bruce-baby, how in the world do you rationalize that Section 117
> > only "permits one to install a _single_ copy?"
> >
> >
> > Don't worry, Bruce. I'll find the appropriate way to lampoon you
> > on my site yet, but until then:



--
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!"

[kurttrail]

Michael Stevens wrote:

> kurttrail wrote:
> > R. McCarty wrote:
> >
> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in
> >> message ...
> >>> In ,
> >>> Paul > typed:
> >>>
> >>>> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> >>>> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> >>>> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> >>>> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> >>>> machines? Anyone know?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> >>> license) for each computer.
> >>>
> >>> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> >>> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> >>> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> >>> enforcement mechanism.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
> >> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
> >> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
> >> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few
> >> people do the second install only to be faced with the activation
> >> failure. After years of multiple installs on a single OS license,
> >> it's sort of a rude awakening to discover product activation.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory
> > monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust
> > http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
> >
> > What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
> > exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as
> > demonstrated by Carey Frisch [MVP]
> > http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/
>
> You do realize you are guilty of doing the same as who you accuse?

Nope!

> You do not have a definitive ruling to back up your opinion and you
> are too afraid to commit your resources or risk you losing the FUD
> value of your opinion. Who is the real sucker?

All the individuals that bought MS's EULA BS without any proof that MS can
strip them of their "fair use" rights.

> I certainly don't believe the sucker is either the consumers that
> adheres to your opinion of the EULA or the EULA as defined in the
> agreement necessary to complete the setup of XP. How can you define
> something that has no real definition?

What did I define? All I said is that an educated consumer can't be
suckered into by some greedy corporations nonsense. Or are you refering to
my definition of Carey?

> A convicted monopolist, copyright owner and developer of software
> still has the right to charge for their non-monopolistic products.

Didn't say they didn't, but once an individual buys a copyrighted product,
that individual has "fair use" right to that copy of copyrighted material.

> You seem in my opinion to lump PA in as a perceived byproduct of
> monopolistic behavior, but it is not monopolistic.

Or the colluding members of the MPAA, RIAA, and the BSA. These colluding
corporate trusts greed has spawned the copy-protection to make it harder for
comsumers to practice "fair use," and to get more money out of consumers for
the same copyrighted material.

> It may be annoying
> and flawed, but not monopolistic.

I didn't say it was. "An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted
predatory monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA
Trust"

> PA is the equivalent of department
> store security cameras and guards to reduce the theft of merchandise
> by people that think they deserve more than they pay for.

I'm in my home, I already bought the product, and the copyright owner has no
business knowing what I do with it in my home.

> The
> accomplished shoplifter, informed software thief or fair rights
> fanatic will always find a way to achieve their goals.

Shoplifters are convicted every day, yet after over a decade of software
being sold to individuals for their own private non-commercial use, not ONE
has ever been convicted of "softlifting" for making and using copies of
software for their own personal use.

FAIR USE IS NOT THEFT! And MS can think that the commercial use terms of
the EULA applies to private non-commercial individuals, but until MS proves
it, like SCO has to prove their licensing claims against IBM, any individual
that buys more than one copy of software is a total sucker, like those few
companies that have bought SCO's Linux use license.

--
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!"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> I understand "additional" much better than you seem to. Let's do
> the math, shall we?Copy # 1 = newly purchased WinXP installation CD in
> package. Additional copy = WinXP installation on hard drive. The
> only other "additional" copy beyond this, permitted by the very law
> you're so fond of quoting (but not understanding, apparently), is the
> archived backup.

"Additional copy or adaptation"

Adaptation # 1 - computer # 1
Adaptation # 2 - computer # 2

And nowhere does the law say that the owner of the copy is limited to only
authorized the making of ONE additional copy or adaptation. As a matter of
FACT the law continues on into the tranfer of copy, and says that
"Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of
the copyright owner." So the law assumes multiple adaptations.

> Otherwise, I see that you've not learned any new rationalizations
> since your purported arguments were first publicly refuted and
> demonstrated to be completely specious and erroneous roughly two years
> ago.

Not then, and not now Brucey-baby!

> You know, an "instrument" that can only play a single note gets
> awfully tiresome after a while.

That's why I don't just play a single note.

> And I see you still fall back on
> name-calling and/or personal insults, as well, when your "arguments"
> fail to make a convert.

And what were you insulted by, Brucey-baby?

> (I presume that that's the nature of the dead
> link you included.)

It works on all my computers.

> You're really in quite a rut, you know.

LOL! ROFL! PMSL! Coming from you, a guy that repeated the same post over
300 times telling me that I'm in a rut?! You are truely the biggist
hypocrite that I've never had the pleasure to meet!

> Perhaps
> I'll put you back in the kill-file for a couple more years, to prevent
> tedium, checking once in a while to see if you've anything new to
> offer, as unlikely as that seems, at this point.
>

That's right, run away, Brucey-baby!

--
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!"

[Michael Stevens]

"kurttrail" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Stevens wrote:
>
> > kurttrail wrote:
> > > R. McCarty wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in
> > >> message ...
> > >>> In ,
> > >>> Paul > typed:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
> > >>>> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
> > >>>> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
> > >>>> many times can you load XP onto how many different
> > >>>> machines? Anyone know?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
> > >>> license) for each computer.
> > >>>
> > >>> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
> > >>> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
> > >>> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
> > >>> enforcement mechanism.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
> > >> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
> > >> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
> > >> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few
> > >> people do the second install only to be faced with the activation
> > >> failure. After years of multiple installs on a single OS license,
> > >> it's sort of a rude awakening to discover product activation.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory
> > > monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust
> > > http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
> > >
> > > What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
> > > exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as
> > > demonstrated by Carey Frisch [MVP]
> > > http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/
> >
> > You do realize you are guilty of doing the same as who you accuse?
>
> Nope!
>

Blinders are on!

> > You do not have a definitive ruling to back up your opinion and you
> > are too afraid to commit your resources or risk you losing the FUD
> > value of your opinion. Who is the real sucker?
>
> All the individuals that bought MS's EULA BS without any proof that MS can
> strip them of their "fair use" rights.
>
> > I certainly don't believe the sucker is either the consumers that
> > adheres to your opinion of the EULA or the EULA as defined in the
> > agreement necessary to complete the setup of XP. How can you define
> > something that has no real definition?
>
> What did I define? All I said is that an educated consumer can't be
> suckered into by some greedy corporations nonsense. Or are you refering
to
> my definition of Carey?
>

Still have the blinders on I see.

> > A convicted monopolist, copyright owner and developer of software
> > still has the right to charge for their non-monopolistic products.
>
> Didn't say they didn't, but once an individual buys a copyrighted product,
> that individual has "fair use" right to that copy of copyrighted material.
>

Fair use defined only by your assessment, not by a defined ruling of law.

> > You seem in my opinion to lump PA in as a perceived byproduct of
> > monopolistic behavior, but it is not monopolistic.
>
> Or the colluding members of the MPAA, RIAA, and the BSA. These colluding
> corporate trusts greed has spawned the copy-protection to make it harder
for
> comsumers to practice "fair use," and to get more money out of consumers
for
> the same copyrighted material.
>

The colluding members are trying to protect their rights to earn a living
for their intelectual property..



> I didn't say it was. "An educated consumer can't be suckered by a
convicted
> predatory monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA
> Trust"
>
> > PA is the equivalent of department
> > store security cameras and guards to reduce the theft of merchandise
> > by people that think they deserve more than they pay for.
>
> I'm in my home, I already bought the product, and the copyright owner has
no
> business knowing what I do with it in my home.
>

You purchased it from the owner and agreed to abide by it's licesiung
agreement. If you didn't agree, you could not use the product. You want more
than you paid for, it is plain and simple.
I cut hair for a living. A client pays for a haircut, then when it needs to
be cut again, they pay AGAIN for the same service. If they have other family
members, it does not entitle the whole family to get a haircut. I make that
decision as the owner of the intellectual property, I enforce it the same as
PA would enforce it.
--


Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm














licensing claims against IBM, any individual
> that buys more than one copy of software is a total sucker, like those few
> companies that have bought SCO's Linux use license.
>
> --
> 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!"
>
>

[kurttrail]

Michael Stevens wrote:

> "kurttrail" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Michael Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" > wrote in
>>>>> message ...
>>>>>> In ,
>>>>>> Paul > typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
>>>>>>> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
>>>>>>> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
>>>>>>> many times can you load XP onto how many different
>>>>>>> machines? Anyone know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
>>>>>> license) for each computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
>>>>>> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
>>>>>> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
>>>>>> enforcement mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
>>>>> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
>>>>> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
>>>>> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few
>>>>> people do the second install only to be faced with the activation
>>>>> failure. After years of multiple installs on a single OS license,
>>>>> it's sort of a rude awakening to discover product activation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory
>>>> monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA
>>>> Trust http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
>>>>
>>>> What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
>>>> exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as
>>>> demonstrated by Carey Frisch [MVP]
>>>> http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/
>>>
>>> You do realize you are guilty of doing the same as who you accuse?
>>
>> Nope!
>>
>
> Blinders are on!
>

LOL!

>>> You do not have a definitive ruling to back up your opinion and you
>>> are too afraid to commit your resources or risk you losing the FUD
>>> value of your opinion. Who is the real sucker?
>>
>> All the individuals that bought MS's EULA BS without any proof that
>> MS can strip them of their "fair use" rights.
>>
>>> I certainly don't believe the sucker is either the consumers that
>>> adheres to your opinion of the EULA or the EULA as defined in the
>>> agreement necessary to complete the setup of XP. How can you define
>>> something that has no real definition?
>>
>> What did I define? All I said is that an educated consumer can't be
>> suckered into by some greedy corporations nonsense. Or are you
>> refering to my definition of Carey?
>>
>
> Still have the blinders on I see.

ROFL!

>
>>> A convicted monopolist, copyright owner and developer of software
>>> still has the right to charge for their non-monopolistic products.
>>
>> Didn't say they didn't, but once an individual buys a copyrighted
>> product, that individual has "fair use" right to that copy of
>> copyrighted material.
>>
>
> Fair use defined only by your assessment, not by a defined ruling of
> law.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

The Supreme Court said "copyrighted work" of which software is just a
small subset.

>
>>> You seem in my opinion to lump PA in as a perceived byproduct of
>>> monopolistic behavior, but it is not monopolistic.
>>
>> Or the colluding members of the MPAA, RIAA, and the BSA. These
>> colluding corporate trusts greed has spawned the copy-protection to
>> make it harder for comsumers to practice "fair use," and to get more
>> money out of consumers for the same copyrighted material.
>>
>
> The colluding members are trying to protect their rights to earn a
> living for their intelectual property..
>

What member of the BSA is even near bankruptcy? The Symantecs, Adobes,
and Microsofts have made more than there "fair return" for the creative
labor of their employees.

"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
to 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

>
>
>> I didn't say it was. "An educated consumer can't be suckered by a
>> convicted predatory monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding
>> members of the BSA Trust"
>>
>>> PA is the equivalent of department
>>> store security cameras and guards to reduce the theft of merchandise
>>> by people that think they deserve more than they pay for.
>>
>> I'm in my home, I already bought the product, and the copyright
>> owner has no business knowing what I do with it in my home.
>>
>
> You purchased it from the owner

I purchased my COPY from the previous owner, the RETAILER.

> and agreed to abide by it's licesiung
> agreement.

And then I choose to disregard those terms that are not applicable to me
as an individual, as the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to
limit my "fair use." The copyright owner would have to sue me, AND
convince a judge that they can shrinkwrap licence away my "fair use"
rights, until I believe any differently!

> If you didn't agree, you could not use the product.

Or I follow contact law, and ignore the terms that try to rewrite my
"fair use" rights, and wait for the copyright owner to prove
differently.

> You
> want more than you paid for, it is plain and simple.

No, I paid for a copy of copyrighted material, and I want to use
legally. "Fair Use" is not immoral, illegal, or getting more than you
paid for.

> I cut hair for a living. A client pays for a haircut, then when it
> needs to be cut again, they pay AGAIN for the same service.

Software is a copyrighted material not a service.

If they
> have other family members, it does not entitle the whole family to
> get a haircut. I make that decision as the owner of the intellectual
> property, I enforce it the same as PA would enforce it.

PA is all FUD & BS, and only preys on the uneducated individual
consumer, to get them to buy more copies of a particular copyrighted
work than they legally need to buy.

>
> licensing claims against IBM, any individual
>> that buys more than one copy of software is a total sucker, like
>> those few companies that have bought SCO's Linux use license.

Go buy a SCO license to run Linux, sucker, as long as you are accepting
the unproven licensing claims of software corporations.

--
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!"

[hermes]

Before the MVP (M$ Victim Poster) Hermes responded, kurttrail typed:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Greetings --
>>
>> I understand "additional" much better than you seem to. Let's do
>> the math, shall we?Copy # 1 = newly purchased WinXP installation CD
>> in package. Additional copy = WinXP installation on hard drive.
>> The only other "additional" copy beyond this, permitted by the very
>> law you're so fond of quoting (but not understanding, apparently),
>> is the archived backup.
>
> "Additional copy or adaptation"
>
> Adaptation # 1 - computer # 1
> Adaptation # 2 - computer # 2
>
> And nowhere does the law say that the owner of the copy is limited to
> only authorized the making of ONE additional copy or adaptation. As
> a matter of FACT the law continues on into the tranfer of copy, and
> says that "Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the
> authorization of the copyright owner." So the law assumes multiple
> adaptations.
>
>> Otherwise, I see that you've not learned any new rationalizations
>> since your purported arguments were first publicly refuted and
>> demonstrated to be completely specious and erroneous roughly two
>> years ago.
>
> Not then, and not now Brucey-baby!
>
>> You know, an "instrument" that can only play a single note gets
>> awfully tiresome after a while.
>
> That's why I don't just play a single note.
>
>> And I see you still fall back on
>> name-calling and/or personal insults, as well, when your "arguments"
>> fail to make a convert.
>
> And what were you insulted by, Brucey-baby?
>
>> (I presume that that's the nature of the dead
>> link you included.)
>
> It works on all my computers.
>
>> You're really in quite a rut, you know.
>
> LOL! ROFL! PMSL! Coming from you, a guy that repeated the same
> post over 300 times telling me that I'm in a rut?! You are truely
> the biggist hypocrite that I've never had the pleasure to meet!

Like I said, Bruce is getting almost as good at this cutting and pasting
thing as Carey! LOL

>
>> Perhaps
>> I'll put you back in the kill-file for a couple more years, to
>> prevent tedium, checking once in a while to see if you've anything
>> new to offer, as unlikely as that seems, at this point.
>>
>
> That's right, run away, Brucey-baby!

At least he responsd to your posts, Kurt. He just goes on looking the other
way blissfully ignoring my responses. ROFL!

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.

Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.

[kurttrail]

hermes wrote:

> Before the MVP (M$ Victim Poster) Hermes responded, kurttrail typed:
>
> Like I said, Bruce is getting almost as good at this cutting and
> pasting thing as Carey! LOL
>

Bruce is the King. Carey is just a mere pretender to the throne.

>> That's right, run away, Brucey-baby!
>
> At least he responsd to your posts, Kurt. He just goes on looking
> the other way blissfully ignoring my responses. ROFL!

LOL! Wait two years, like me! ;-)

--
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!"