If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
How plain can I get.
Your attitude and name calling tell you for what you are. Your signature further points you over inflated ego. When you can learn to act civilly in a civil environment only then are you worth a response. So the "silence speaks volumes" is a credit to your own character clearly defined by your own attitude and name calling. If you can not understand this, ask your teacher in the fall when school begins or even now if your teacher can be contacted. I am not a teacher and will not try to do what your teacher and parents failed. Good bye kurt -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "kurttrail" wrote in message ... kurttrail wrote: You're silence speaks volumes! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
How plain can I get. Your attitude and name calling tell you for what you are. Excuse Me? Who did I call a name? Your signature further points you over inflated ego. Obviously, you don't understand self-deprecating humor! I'm making fun of myself with my sig! LOL! When you can learn to act civilly in a civil environment only then are you worth a response. It's you that hasn't acted civilly! I've been waiting for you to stop attacking me, and discussed this rationally! And I'm still waiting! So the "silence speaks volumes" is a credit to your own character clearly defined by your own attitude and name calling. Again, who did I call a name! Why don't you stop attacking me and rationally discuss what I have said! If you can not understand this, ask your teacher in the fall when school begins or even now if your teacher can be contacted. LOL! I am not a teacher and will not try to do what your teacher and parents failed. Because you are innately incapable of discussing this matter rationally! Good bye kurt Runaway from the discussion after yet another attack on my person! ROFL! I think you've clearly demonstrated to any casual observer, who has been on the attack in this thread, and who has been willing to discuss this in a civil, rational manner! Thank You! Your avoiding to discuss this rationally, also speaks volumes, Jupiter! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Michael Stevens wrote: "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Not legally. It's legal in the US! Prove it! I already did, by showing a law that allows it. You know, the part you snipped out without indicating that you snipped anything out! No you gave your opinion on how you see and define the ruling, I don't see it that way at all, even with your diligent Encarta definitions of the individual words. Can you show me an example where your definition of the ruling has been used with success? If you can I will accept your statement it is legal in the US. Otherwise, maybe you should drop the definitive statement it is legal in the US. I can acknowledge a law is not broken by breaking the EULA contract, but it doesn't mean penalties can't be accessed if the owner of the EULA desires to do so. -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Michael Stevens wrote: "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Not legally. It's legal in the US! Prove it! I already did, by showing a law that allows it. You know, the part you snipped out without indicating that you snipped anything out! No you gave your opinion on how you see and define the ruling, I don't see it that way at all, even with your diligent Encarta definitions of the individual words. Can you show me an example where your definition of the ruling has been used with success? If you can I will accept your statement it is legal in the US. Otherwise, maybe you should drop the definitive statement it is legal in the US. I can acknowledge a law is not broken by breaking the EULA contract, but it doesn't mean penalties can't be accessed if the owner of the EULA desires to do so. -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in message ... Michael Stevens wrote: "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Not legally. It's legal in the US! Prove it! I already did, by showing a law that allows it. You know, the part you snipped out without indicating that you snipped anything out! No you gave your opinion on how you see and define the ruling, No I stated copyright law, Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117, and I interpreted it out of the legalese! It's not a "ruling," IT"S THE LAW I don't see it that way at all, even with your diligent Encarta definitions of the individual words. Well, right now I don't see my hands, maybe we both should open our eyes! Can you show me an example where your definition of the ruling has been used with success? No, I can't, because it's not a "ruling," IT"S THE LAW! I'll follow the laws of the land, as I interpret them, not according to how you or Microsoft interpret them! Don't like my interpretation, the you both can go sue me, it's a free country! If you can I will accept your statement it is legal in the US. Well, it certain hasn't been established that it is illegal in the US! And until it has people have every right to follow the law, as they interpret it! Otherwise, maybe you should drop the definitive statement it is legal in the US. Prove me wrong, or prove it's illegal then! I can acknowledge a law is not broken by breaking the EULA contract, but it doesn't mean penalties can't be accessed if the owner of the EULA desires to do so. That's right, and it doesn't mean that any legal penalties will ever be accessed either, because individuals have rights to copyrighted material that copyright owners don't possess "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." - US Supreme Court - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael;
There is really no point From kurt's post below: "I'll follow the laws of the land, as I interpret them" He reads law, ignoring what goes against what he likes and keeps the rest, some not even relevant. Obviously it is not for us to interpret, it is for a judge, (kurt is far from being a judge) He will interpret the laws as he wishes, from there he can make anything seem correct. However he does not make or change the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "Michael Stevens" wrote in message ... "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Michael Stevens wrote: "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: Not legally. It's legal in the US! Prove it! I already did, by showing a law that allows it. You know, the part you snipped out without indicating that you snipped anything out! No you gave your opinion on how you see and define the ruling, I don't see it that way at all, even with your diligent Encarta definitions of the individual words. Can you show me an example where your definition of the ruling has been used with success? If you can I will accept your statement it is legal in the US. Otherwise, maybe you should drop the definitive statement it is legal in the US. I can acknowledge a law is not broken by breaking the EULA contract, but it doesn't mean penalties can't be accessed if the owner of the EULA desires to do so. -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
Michael; There is really no point From kurt's post below: "I'll follow the laws of the land, as I interpret them" "I'll follow the laws of the land, as I interpret them, *not* *according* *to* *how* *you* *or* *Microsoft* *interpret* *them*!" Nothing like taking a partial comment out of a sentence, Jupiter! Are you proud of your self for taking a partial sentence out of context?! He reads law, ignoring what goes against what he likes and keeps the rest, some not even relevant. You mean like you with my words! At least I shown where you ignored what I said. You just say I ignore things without specifying what! LOL! Obviously it is not for us to interpret, it is for a judge, (kurt is far from being a judge) He will interpret the laws as he wishes, from there he can make anything seem correct. "I follow the law, not the copyright owners interpretation of what they think they can get away with under the law!" However he does not make or change the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse Then what's your excuse, Jupiter?! ROFL! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Prove me wrong, or prove it's illegal then! Her's some reading for you Kurtail. Links provide so you can access the full text. If you can't accept the EFF being a valid source of information. Then I can only assume you won't accept any source any of us post. An Excerpt from the Electronic Frontier Foundation's link regarding Copyrights http://www.eff.org/IP//legal_softwar...ection.article My comments inline, enclosed in brackets Journal: Communications of the ACM Feb 1989 v32 n2 p169(3) * Full Text COPYRIGHT Assn. for Computing Machinery, Inc. 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Title: Legal protection for computer software. (legally speaking) (column) (technical) Author: Yoches, E. Robert. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Descriptors.. Record#: 07 058 358. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- *Note* Only Text is presented here; see printed issues for graphics. Full Text: Legal Protection for Computer Software This is a new quarterly column created to discuss issues of intellectual property rights involving software. Intellectual property is a broad term which encompasses patents, copyrights, trade secrets and trademarks. The use of the term property accurately reflects that these rights are property rights that can be assigned, licensed, or even used as collateral. The term intellectual denotes the lack of a physical quality to the rights. For example, the copyright in a computer program is separate from the physical copy of the program. [ In other words, You own the media. Not the Software. Gee, Maybe we should have told you that. Wait!!! We did!! Numerous times ] This non-physical quality of intellectual property rights is also a chief cause for most people's confusion regarding those rights. [Hey, This describes you} For the most part, intellectual property laws have a broad perspective and are not directed specifically to software. There are some exceptions, however, like the federal copyright statute which specifically mentions computer programs and includes a section directed to the law of copyrights as applied to computer software. Most intellectual property laws do not have such provisions, however, and as future columns will point out, problems do arise when general intellectual property concepts are stretched to fit computer software. The different forms of intellectual property differ in the type of protection they afford, the subject matter which can be protected, the manner of obtaining protection, and the form of government (state or federal) which enforces the specific laws giving rise to the protection. For example, an intellectual property right may arise from a federal law, and thereby be applied equally throughout the country, or may result from a state law, and thus vary from state to state. Intellectual property protection may also result of a number of court decisions. Generally, this is referred to as the common law. COPYRIGHTS One of the most popular forms of intellectual property protection for computer software is the copyright law. The current copyright law came into effect in 1978. In 1980, certain changes were made to define copyright protection for computer programs. The copyright law is a federal law and completely preempts any state copyright laws which may have existed prior to 1976. Copyright protects "original works of authorship" [ this would be Microsoft in our discussions ] against unauthorized copying. [ Umm, Did Microsoft authorize you to install a copy on more then one machine? I don't think so. ] Perhaps the most basic statement about copyrights is that the copyright laws protect expression but not ideas. Although this sounds like a simple statement, substantial litigation, including many cases in the computer software area, involve the question of what is an idea and what is an expression. For example, there has been recent press coverage concerning "look and feel" protection for computer programs under the copyright laws. The underlying issues in these "look and feel" cases is whether the protectable expression in a computer program extends beyond the literal program listing to the "structure, sequence, and organization" of the program and, if so, where is the line drawn between what is considered expression and what is considered idea. Fortunately, issues of copyright duration are not as controversial. Copyright protection comes into being (subsists") when an original work of authorship is created. Thus, the mere act of authoring creates the copyright for that work. Copyright registration is not needed to obtain protection. A copyright registration must be obtained before one can sue for copyright infringement, however, and certain monetary recoveries may not be available in infringement precedes registration. The U.S. Copyright Office issues copyright registrations. For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection exists either for the life of the author plus 50 years after his or her death, or for 75 years from publication for anonymous works or works made for hire (e.g., works created by an employee in the course of employment). Maintaining copyright protection is easy. Until March 1, 1989, all one needs to do is place a copyright notice on any publicly distributed copies of the work. Copyright notice includes the word "copyright," "Copr.," or a copyright symbol, plus the date that the work was created and an identification of the owner of the copyright. Copyright notice is not needed for copies that are not publicly distributed, but it is generally a good idea to include notice. After March 1, notice will no longer be required but is advised. [ Sections on Patents and Trademarks snip as irrelevant. ] From: http://www.eff.org/IP//cni_copyright.faq Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, DC 20559 202-479-0700 Source: Copyright Basics, Circular 1, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, January 1991 What Copyright Is Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: - To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; [ Make a copy of… ] - To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; - To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; - To perform the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and - To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the Act to the owner of copyright. [ It's illegal??? Wow, That must mean there is a LAW. ] These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" [ This must mean that if you don't agree with the license, You can't use the software. Sounds a lot like the MS EULA. You know, The End User LICENSE Agreement. ] under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. [ Wow! Didn't we pay for windows? ] For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the Copyright Act or write to the Copyright Office. From: http://www.eff.org/IP//fair_use_and_copyright.excerpt Ok, You like to argue "Fair use". Let's see ho that applies. Shall we? [This is a simple and clear legal explanation of the doctrine of "fair use" as a defense to charges of copyright infringement, excerpted from Judge Whyte's decision, Sept. 22, 1995, in RTC & Bridge v. Erlich, Netcom & Klemesrud.] Fair Use Defense "Infringement' consists of violating the author's exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. section 501. Although the author has the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display a copyrighted work under section 106, these rights are limited by the defense [12] of "fair use"" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106A, the *fair use of a copyrighted work,* including such use by reproduction in copies . . . or by any other means specified in that section, *for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement* of copyright. [ How is installing a second copy of Windows on the wife's or juniors computer full any of these criteria? ] 17 U.S.C. section 107 (emphasis added). The defense "permits and requires courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170 (1994) (citation omitted). Congress has set out four nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining the availability of the fair use defense: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; [ Well, Doubt being too cheap to buy a second licenses qualifies. ] (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and { Copy the WHOLE thing??? I doubt it. ] (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [ Microsoft claims it cost them revenue and is driving up market prices. Microsoft doesn't need to prove this until someone challenges them in court. ] 17 U.S.C. section 107. The fair use doctrine calls for a case-by-case analysis. Campbell, 114 S.Ct. at 1170. All of the factors "are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright." Id. at 1170-71. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
No, I can't, because it's not a "ruling," IT"S THE LAW! I'll follow the laws of the land, as I interpret them, not according to how you or Microsoft interpret them! Don't like my interpretation, the you both can go sue me, it's a free country! Here in Calif. WE have Highway signs that simply say "Speed Limit 65" Following your "Logic" I interpret that to mean the MINIMUN Speed limit and that I'm allowed to drive as fast as I want above 65mph. Funny, I just don't think it works that way. Are you a Judge? Have you passed the BAR? No? Then you are not legally qualified to interpret the law. David |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
David wrote:
snip For example, the copyright in a computer program is separate from the physical copy of the program. [ In other words, You own the media. Not the Software. Gee, Maybe we should have told you that. Wait!!! We did!! Numerous times ] ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html "TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 117 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 . . . . 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 . . . ." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html This is why I always say I own my *copy* of software. LOL! snip Copyright protects "original works of authorship" [ this would be Microsoft in our discussions ] No, it would be Windows XP. MS isn't an original work of authorship, they are the Copyright Owner or Holder. against unauthorized copying. [ Umm, Did Microsoft authorize you to install a copy on more then one machine? I don't think so. ] No, Congress did by placing limitations on the rights of copyright owners! http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch1.html Sec. 101. Definitions Sec. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general Sec. 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works Sec. 104. Subject matter of copyright: National origin Sec. 104A. Copyright in restored works Sec. 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Sec. 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Sec. 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives Sec. 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord Sec. 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays Sec. 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions Sec. 112. Limitations on exclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings Sec. 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works Sec. 114. Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings Sec. 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords Sec. 116. Negotiated licenses for public performances by means of coin-operated phonorecord players Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs Sec. 118. Scope of exclusive rights: Use of certain works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting Sec. 119. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of superstations and network stations for private home viewing Sec. 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works Sec. 121. Limitations on exclusive rights: reproduction for blind or other people with disabilities Sec. 122. Limitations on exclusive rights; secondary transmissions by satellite carriers within local markets See all the limitations Copyright Law puts on copyright owners *rights*! LOL! snip It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the Act to the owner of copyright. [ It's illegal??? Wow, That must mean there is a LAW. ] It's illegal to violate a copyright owners right, unless there is a limitation placed on their rights. "These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act." Wow! That must mean there are LIMITATIONS! These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act. Missed this, huh?! Do you think that Section 117 is somewhere between Sections 107 and 119?! ROFL! You do remember Section 117, don't you?! LOL! 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 computerprogram 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 aCopy 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/featur...rch=adaptation made -http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResult s.aspx?search=created necessary - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...arch=essential making use - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...search=utilize together with - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...ch=conjunction a previously unknown - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861582871 or - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...aspx?search=or In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" [ This must mean that if you don't agree with the license, You can't use the software. Sounds a lot like the MS EULA. You know, The End User LICENSE Agreement. ] Totally & Absolutely Wrong! "Sec. 115. - Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords - In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by *clauses* *(1)* *and* *(3)* *of* *section* *106*, to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html "*Sec. 106*. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works - Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: *(1)* to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords . . . . *(3)* to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending . . . ." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. [ Wow! Didn't we pay for windows? ] I didn't know that Windows is a phonorecord! Does it play at 33, 45, or 78?! snip Fair Use Defense "Infringement' consists of violating the author's exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. section 501. Although the author has the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display a copyrighted work under section 106, these rights are limited by the defense [12] of "fair use"" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106A, the *fair use of a copyrighted work,* including such use by reproduction in copies . . . or by any other means specified in that section, *for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement* of copyright. [ How is installing a second copy of Windows on the wife's or juniors computer full any of these criteria? ] The wife is a co-owner of the copy of software. And the children are legal dependents! No judge in his right mind would rule that one could not share with one's wife, and dependent children! What country do you live in?! 17 U.S.C. section 107 (emphasis added). The defense "permits and requires courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170 (1994) (citation omitted). Congress has set out four nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining the availability of the fair use defense: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; [ Well, Doubt being too cheap to buy a second licenses qualifies. ] "whether such a use is of a commercial nature" NO! (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and { Copy the WHOLE thing??? I doubt it. ] When the use is private & non-commercial and within the bounds of one's home, your doubt isn't likely to be the determining factor for a judge! (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [ Microsoft claims it cost them revenue and is driving up market prices. Microsoft doesn't need to prove this until someone challenges them in court. ] Wrong Again! "Fair Use" is a defense, only if you are being sued by the copyright owner. You don't sue the copyright owner in order to establish your use as a fair use. So MS doesn't have to demonstrate #4 until MS challenges someone else in court, and they use Section 107 as a defense! 17 U.S.C. section 107. The fair use doctrine calls for a case-by-case analysis. Campbell, 114 S.Ct. at 1170. All of the factors "are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright." Id. at 1170-71. Up to a judge to decide, not the copyright owner! Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 Thanks for helping me prove my point! Hope you learn something! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
David wrote:
No, I can't, because it's not a "ruling," IT"S THE LAW! I'll follow the laws of the land, as I interpret them, not according to how you or Microsoft interpret them! Don't like my interpretation, the you both can go sue me, it's a free country! Here in Calif. WE have Highway signs that simply say "Speed Limit 65" Following your "Logic" I interpret that to mean the MINIMUN Speed limit and that I'm allowed to drive as fast as I want above 65mph. Funny, I just don't think it works that way. Well, since there is plenty of court precedent that establishes that the Speed Limit is a maximum speed, you'd look pretty damned foolish! Since there is absolutely no legal precedent that establishes MS's legal interpretation of their enforcing their post-sale EULA usage terms on private non-commercial individuals, my interpretation is just as valid as MS's, until a court decides! Are you a Judge? Is Microsoft? No, it's a proven corporate criminal! Have you passed the BAR? No? Did Microsoft? Well, they do have lawyers on their staff, but that hasn't stop MS from infringing on patents, or from becoming an illegal predatory monopoly! Then you are not legally qualified to interpret the law. Then neither is MS! And as I said on many occasions, "why let MS be the Judge in your own home, when they are too afraid to bring their One Computer EULA term before a *real* Judge? Until then, shouldn't you be the Judge in your own home?" -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
kurttrail wrote:
Michael Stevens wrote: No need to quote the entire thread, I did say "ruling"[my mistake], but I was expressing I didn't agree to your assessment of Title 17, Chapter 117 of the quoted copyright law. I have not seen a ruling that supports your definition of the preceding, and I don't see how you come to your conclusion. How a copy created for archive purposes can be used for multiple installs; and for that copy to be activated for multiple installs using the same key, the user must know how to deceive the activation process to do so. I do not see how fair use comes into play. You are given the licensing restrictions on the outside of the retail box, if you don't read the restrictions, that is negligence if you purchased the product and expected more. There is just no way you can rationalize it to me that this law says you can make multiple installs with your archive copy or copy 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. Where does it say or imply you can or are entitled to the use of the software beyond the license agreement you were presented with before purchase and was necessary to agree to to complete setup? -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: No need to quote the entire thread, I did say "ruling"[my mistake], but I was expressing I didn't agree to your assessment of Title 17, Chapter 117 of the quoted copyright law. I have not seen a ruling that supports your definition of the preceding, and I don't see how you come to your conclusion. Have you seen a court ruling that is contrary to my opinion? If you have, let me know! How a copy created for archive purposes can be used for multiple installs; Where does Section 117 mention archival, Mike? 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 computerprogram should cease to be rightful. Now do you remember my list of definitions? *or* CORE MEANING: a conjunction used to link two or more alternatives. In a series of alternatives, it is usually used only before the last alternative. Which do you prefer, butter or low-fat spread? factors that may trigger or exacerbate the illness Now you explain how *or* means *and*! *and* CORE MEANING: a conjunction used to indicate an additional thing, situation, or fact. “And” in this case links words and phrases of the same grammatical value. - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861585484 But this isn't the first time I've had to point this out to you, is it? and for that copy to be activated for multiple installs using the same key, the user must know how to deceive the activation process to do so. Well this is a total non-seqitor, as up until this point we were talking about the *LAW*, not MS post-sale EULA! I do not see how fair use comes into play. You are given the licensing restrictions on the outside of the retail box, if you don't read the restrictions, that is negligence if you purchased the product and expected more. What does it exactly say on the box? Stand at the check out counter at your WalMart and ask every person if they think they own what they just bought! MS's retail software is "shrinkwrap licensed, never been legally proven to be a software license on private individuals! There is just no way you can rationalize it to me that this law says you can make multiple installs with your archive copy or copy 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. "that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer" What don't you see? I defined every word I changed for you. I can't help it you have your own delusional definitions, can I? You have every right to believe MS's interpretion of their EULA is the greatest thing in the world, but I have every right to believe the oposite, until MS get the balls to bring this before a Judge to decide, once and for all! Where does it say or imply you can or are entitled to the use of the software beyond the license agreement you were presented with before purchase and was necessary to agree to to complete setup? By placing this specific Limitation on Computer Program copyright owners, Congress gave the owners of a copy of a computer program the right to multiple installs. MS can't then try to rewrite this *LAW* in some post-sale EULA! "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold." This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap license, into a software license. Unfortunately with retail software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it. The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2 owners of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the software. Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. LOL! Denying reality happened three times! Sounds unconscionable to me! People own every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the legal status quo at the present! Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license said that TV wasn't sold?! What law does MS's EULA violate? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 . . . . Until there is some definitive legal precedent that clears this all up, one way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what they can and can not do with the retail software that was legally SOLD to them by the previous owner of that software?! Or should people just believe the interpretions of law & contracts from a convicted predatory monopolist, without one legal precedent to back that interpretation up? -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 have yet to find a clearer or more beautiful explanation of purpose of Copyright in the US! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
"kurttrail" wrote in
: David wrote: snip For example, the copyright in a computer program is separate from the physical copy of the program. [ In other words, You own the media. Not the Software. Gee, Maybe we should have told you that. Wait!!! We did!! Numerous times ] ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed In other words. The copy is the Music or Data on the materiel media fixed by any method now known or ***later developed*** This would include Magnetic media such as Taps, Floppy Disk, and Hard Disk, and Optical Media such as Compact Disk. "TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 117 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 . . . . 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 . . . ." It is essential to copy the software fromt he CD to the computer that it is being install upon.. But, It is NOT essential to install the software onmore then one computer. You can copy the software to "A computer" "A computer" being singular. Just one. no more then one. Not two or three. But, one. - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html This is why I always say I own my *copy* of software. LOL! You are not the owner of Copy. But of a copy. The capitalization is distinctive. You can Wallpaper you home with copies of the CD if you wish snip Copyright protects "original works of authorship" [ this would be Microsoft in our discussions ] No, it would be Windows XP. MS isn't an original work of authorship, they are the Copyright Owner or Holder. OK. I misspoke myslef here. I'll grant you that. against unauthorized copying. [ Umm, Did Microsoft authorize you to install a copy on more then one machine? I don't think so. ] No, Congress did by placing limitations on the rights of copyright owners! Only if you meet the criteria set forth in Sec. 117. Whcih you haven't See all the limitations Copyright Law puts on copyright owners *rights*! LOL! You haven't meet the criteria required to enforce these limitations snip It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the Act to the owner of copyright. [ It's illegal??? Wow, That must mean there is a LAW. ] It's illegal to violate a copyright owners right, unless there is a limitation placed on their rights. "These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act." Wow! That must mean there are LIMITATIONS! These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act. Missed this, huh?! Do you think that Section 117 is somewhere between Sections 107 and 119?! ROFL! You do remember Section 117, don't you?! LOL! No. Didn't miss it. You haven't shown "Fair Use". you merrely think you have. 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 Again. I ask you to show how installing the software on MORE THEN ONE COMPUTER is essential to installing the software. (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 computerprogram should cease to be rightful. For Archival Purpose ONLY. An archive being a backup in case the original is damaged. snip In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" [ This must mean that if you don't agree with the license, You can't use the software. Sounds a lot like the MS EULA. You know, The End User LICENSE Agreement. ] Totally & Absolutely Wrong! "Sec. 115. - Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords - In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by *clauses* *(1)* *and* *(3)* *of* *section* *106*, to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html Since you love looking up definitions so much. Look up "Musical works" "*Sec. 106*. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works - Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: *(1)* to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords . . . . *(3)* to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending . . . ." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. [ Wow! Didn't we pay for windows? ] I didn't know that Windows is a phonorecord! Does it play at 33, 45, or 78?! snip Fair Use Defense "Infringement' consists of violating the author's exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. section 501. Although the author has the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display a copyrighted work under section 106, these rights are limited by the defense [12] of "fair use"" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106A, the *fair use of a copyrighted work,* including such use by reproduction in copies . . . or by any other means specified in that section, *for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement* of copyright. [ How is installing a second copy of Windows on the wife's or juniors computer full any of these criteria? ] The wife is a co-owner of the copy of software. And the children are legal dependents! No judge in his right mind would rule that one could not share with one's wife, and dependent children! What country do you live in?! I'll grant you this. I agree. We should be permitte to install on any machine we own. Now, You just need to get a Judge to agree with you and make it legal. 17 U.S.C. section 107 (emphasis added). The defense "permits and requires courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170 (1994) (citation omitted). Congress has set out four nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining the availability of the fair use defense: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; [ Well, Doubt being too cheap to buy a second licenses qualifies. ] "whether such a use is of a commercial nature" NO! (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and { Copy the WHOLE thing??? I doubt it. ] When the use is private & non-commercial and within the bounds of one's home, your doubt isn't likely to be the determining factor for a judge! Neither are *your* interpretations of Copyright law. (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [ Microsoft claims it cost them revenue and is driving up market prices. Microsoft doesn't need to prove this until someone challenges them in court. ] Wrong Again! "Fair Use" is a defense, only if you are being sued by the copyright owner. You don't sue the copyright owner in order to establish your use as a fair use. So MS doesn't have to demonstrate #4 until MS challenges someone else in court, and they use Section 107 as a defense! In other words. "It ain't illegal until you get cought"?? It's a defense that will probably fail. 17 U.S.C. section 107. The fair use doctrine calls for a case-by-case analysis. Campbell, 114 S.Ct. at 1170. All of the factors "are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright." Id. at 1170-71. Up to a judge to decide, not the copyright owner! Nor you or me. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 Thanks for helping me prove my point! Hope you learn something! This is a specific case involving Copyrighted works being brodcast over a radio and whether or not playing that radio in public is considered a performance. It has nothingk to do with making copies of software or Softeare license agreements. And, Yes. I did learn something. That you have absolutely no idea how our legal system works. David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|