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
  #46  
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!"


Ads
  #47  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

kurttrail wrote:
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!


Same here, have you seen one that is contrary to my opinion?

How a copy created for archive purposes
can be used for multiple installs;


Where does Section 117 mention archival, Mike?


Absolutely I see where archival is mentioned, and I don't agree with the
part before the "or" either.
You always ignore this part.
"or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may
be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."
It does not define "utilization of the computer program" as a license to
install on as many computers as you like.

Just don't see the need to answer any more of your details. I can't see how
you get the "CORE MEANING" out of what I read from the same source.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...html?DB=uscode
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

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


  #48  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

kurttrail wrote:
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!


If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed to be
slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted from? It's hard
to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not have the right to charge
for technology they developed in house or find and acquire to interrogate
into the OS. If you look at the pricing of Windows, it has not increased in
price on scale with the worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS
is a business that shareholders expect a return on their investment.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

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


  #49  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers



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!


It says " The product uses technolological measures for copy protection-you
will not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the
product activation procedures. Product activation procedures and Microsoft's
privacy statements will be described during the launch of the product. For
installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license
terms). You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use
this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you
should promptly return the product for a refund."
Are the people at the check out stand stupid, uninformed or misled by what
they read or what they were told was accepatable if they think they have the
right to install on multilpe computers? It has to be one of the preceding,
because it is clearly defined on the outside of the box it is for use on one
computer per license
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

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


  #50  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Of course it was integrate instead of interrograte.

find and acquire to integrate into the OS.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

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


  #51  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote:
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!


If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed
to be slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted
from? It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not
have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or
find and acquire to integrate into the OS. If you look at the
pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the
worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that
shareholders expect a return on their investment.




  #52  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote:
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!


If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed
to be slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted
from? It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not
have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or
find and acquire to interrogate into the OS. If you look at the
pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the
worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that
shareholders expect a return on their investment.




  #53  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Michael Stevens wrote:

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!


It says " The product uses technolological measures for copy
protection-you will not be able to use the product if you do not
fully comply with the product activation procedures. Product
activation procedures and Microsoft's privacy statements will be
described during the launch of the product. For installation and use
on one computer (see License Agreement for license terms). You must
accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this
product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you
should promptly return the product for a refund."


Does give a proper warning to the indivdual that MS is claiming that the
product is being sold! Just hides MS's lie till the box is open, and
the End User can no longer get a full refund, since the retailer won't
accept an open box, and the person must send it back to MS at the End
Users expense!

Are the people at the check out stand stupid, uninformed or misled by
what they read or what they were told was accepatable if they think
they have the right to install on multilpe computers?


No they been duped by the legal & marketing staffs of MS!

It has to be
one of the preceding, because it is clearly defined on the outside of
the box it is for use on one computer per license


Clearly defines nothing expect that it will be explained later!
Obviously MS never clearly defines PA even during the install process!
Look at all the people asking question about PA after they bought it,
and installed it!

People should need a lawyer to use a retail product in their homes, and
this goes totally against the 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!"


  #54  
Old December 27th 03, 06:29 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Michael Stevens wrote:

kurttrail wrote:
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!


If you say so. LOL.


And I did say so!

Sounded a little tentative to me.


How?

It also seemed
to be slanted toward the arts.


Creative Works. Don't think software is creative? Do think that people
author software?

What case was this missive quoted
from?


All you had to do was scroll up the page on the link I provided! But
that wouldn't be the only case it's been quoted in.

It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not
have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or
find and acquire to interrogate into the OS.


One copy per individual, not per some machine with no rights that
doesn't even enter into the calculus of what copyright is meant for!

If you look at the
pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the
worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that
shareholders expect a return on their investment.


That's right MS's only motivation is greed, and MS will do anything it
thinks it can get away to feed it's greed!

--
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!"


  #55  
Old December 27th 03, 06:33 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Tell me, Kurt. You claim you bought XP. Can you create copes of XP
and sell them for profit?

David
  #56  
Old December 27th 03, 06:33 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

David wrote:

Tell me, Kurt. You claim you bought XP. Can you create copes of XP
and sell them for profit?

David


No. That wouldn't wouldn't be a fair use, and I've never advocated the
distribution of copyright material to others outside of the privacy of
the home. And I've never bought Windows XP, nor do I use Windows XP in
my home. Any future Microsoft products are dead to me!

--
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!"


  #57  
Old December 27th 03, 06:34 PM
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

kurt;
Interesting as you are currently using Microsoft products.
Patches are products as well as the relatively new Outlook Express you
are using.
Only when convenient I guess, as with your interpretation of law and
EULA...only when convenient.

Knowing you would always use what is the best you can get, I find it
interesting you use what you despise.

I guess "Any future Microsoft products are dead to me" must mean after
today since you are using Microsoft products newer than Windows XP.
Very interesting!

--
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 ...
No. That wouldn't wouldn't be a fair use, and I've never advocated

the
distribution of copyright material to others outside of the privacy

of
the home. And I've never bought Windows XP, nor do I use Windows XP

in
my home. Any future Microsoft products are dead to me!

--
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!"



  #58  
Old December 27th 03, 06:34 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

kurt;
Interesting as you are currently using Microsoft products.
Patches are products as well as the relatively new Outlook Express you
are using.


Patches are to fix problems in already existing but flawed products!

Only when convenient I guess, as with your interpretation of law and
EULA...only when convenient.


How convenient that MS won't be getting my hard earned money for their
PA-disabled products! LOL!


Knowing you would always use what is the best you can get, I find it
interesting you use what you despise.


Win2K is MS's most stable OS! I paid for it, and I'll use it, as I see
fit in my home, and their ain't a damn thing you or MS can do about it!
Hell, I even used FrontPage to create my Microscum parody sub-domain
just to spite MS! I used their product to cum over their name! What is
see as hypocritical, I'm doing for spite!


I guess "Any future Microsoft products are dead to me" must mean after
today since you are using Microsoft products newer than Windows XP.
Very interesting!


Not as interesting as you obsessing over me! You really do love me!

I should warn you that I'm a Top, but that should be a problem for you,
seeing how far you've bent over for MS! ;-)

--
Kisses!
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!"


  #59  
Old December 27th 03, 06:35 PM
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

If I had a customer like you, I would be glad to point you to any of
my competition.

"hypocritical" Your word not mine, now we know how you really feel
about yourself!

Your website?
Waste of bandwidth.
However it is your money and there is free speech.
So go back and look at it and then check the hit counter.
Then you are sure it has incremented by at least one.

What I think about you is not relevant.
However your unethical twisting of the law and EULA should be detested
by all that respect any kind of law and order.

Your precise thinking, attitude and actions was a partial cause for
this WPA that most everyone hates.
So to elaborate, without people like you, there may not be WPA.
Proud of yourself aren't you!

Your threat noted.

--
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 ...
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

kurt;
Interesting as you are currently using Microsoft products.
Patches are products as well as the relatively new Outlook Express

you
are using.


Patches are to fix problems in already existing but flawed products!

Only when convenient I guess, as with your interpretation of law

and
EULA...only when convenient.


How convenient that MS won't be getting my hard earned money for

their
PA-disabled products! LOL!


Knowing you would always use what is the best you can get, I find

it
interesting you use what you despise.


Win2K is MS's most stable OS! I paid for it, and I'll use it, as I

see
fit in my home, and their ain't a damn thing you or MS can do about

it!
Hell, I even used FrontPage to create my Microscum parody sub-domain
just to spite MS! I used their product to cum over their name!

What is
see as hypocritical, I'm doing for spite!


I guess "Any future Microsoft products are dead to me" must mean

after
today since you are using Microsoft products newer than Windows

XP.
Very interesting!


Not as interesting as you obsessing over me! You really do love me!

I should warn you that I'm a Top, but that should be a problem for

you,
seeing how far you've bent over for MS! ;-)

--
Kisses!
Kurt



  #60  
Old December 27th 03, 06:36 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

If I had a customer like you, I would be glad to point you to any of
my competition.




"hypocritical" Your word not mine, now we know how you really feel
about yourself!


I was summing up what you saying, Lover. Email me, and we'll get
together, I let you experience how I feel . . . . inside of you! ;-)

Your website?
Waste of bandwidth.
However it is your money and there is free speech.
So go back and look at it and then check the hit counter.
Then you are sure it has incremented by at least one.


What hit counter? You must be seeing things, silly boy! Pre-occupied
day-dreaming of me! How sweet!

What I think about you is not relevant.


Finally, a bit of truth!

However your unethical twisting of the law and EULA should be detested
by all that respect any kind of law and order.


Since you have yet to demonstrate how my interpretation is unethical
twisting, why should anyone, who believes in the rule of law, do
anything *you* suggest?

Your precise thinking, attitude and actions was a partial cause for
this WPA that most everyone hates.


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

So to elaborate, without people like you, there may not be WPA.




Proud of yourself aren't you!


Not proud. More like enlightened, secure in my beliefs, and at peace
with the universe.


Your threat noted.


A warning, Sweetie! And you really got nothing to worry about, darling,
as loose as you are, you'll hardly feel little Kurt!

--
Kisses!
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 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.