A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

using windows on two computers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old December 27th 03, 06:26 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

David wrote:

"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


ROFL! "'Copies' are material objects . . . . in which a word is fixed!"

In other words, you can not understand English! LOL!

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.


". . . . 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 . . . ."

In other words, you can not understand English! LOL!

-
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


"it is not an infringement for the *owner* *of* *a* *copy* *of* *a*
*computer* *program*"

In other words, you can not understand English! 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.

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


Only if you don't understand the English language!


See all the limitations Copyright Law puts on copyright owners
*rights*! LOL!


You haven't meet the criteria required to enforce these limitations


Only if you don't understand the English language! ROFL!


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.


Fair Use is Section 107, not 117! LOL!

In other words, you can not understand English! ROFL!


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.


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 . . . .

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

(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.


Remember what "or" means?! No, I don't believe you do! ROFL!


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"


No thanks! I'll just ask you what it has to do with a post-sale
shrinkwrap license?!


"*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.


It's not illegal now! Show me a law or court precedent that backs up
your assertion of illegality!


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.


Well at least I have my own interpretation that might sway a judge!
Your unexplained doubt surely would have absolutely no merit!



(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.


When MS gets the balls to sue someone over it, call me! Didn't you see
the Section Heading for this article? "Fair Use Defense" -
http://www.eff.org/IP//fair_use_and_copyright.excerpt



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.


Then who are you gonna let make your own personal decision about this,
until MS or any other software copyright owner brings this before a real
judge to decide? If your not gonna make your own decision, then who is
the master of your home?! Hell, MS hasn't had the balls to do it in
over a decade, so who is the Judge in you home, until MS grow a set of
balls, Microsoft?!


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.


It explains the legal reasoning of what Copyright is for in the US, and
how the Supreme Court goes about deciding matters of copyright. I knew
you'd miss the point!

And, Yes. I did learn something. That you have absolutely no idea
how our legal system works.


And you have absolutely no idea how to understand English. Not that
that is any surprise to me!

Please try again when you have the reading comprehension level of an
eighth grader! That should be in about a decade or so! 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!"


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.