Why Only On One PC?

Greetings --

Rather then WPA and a 5 minute phone call on the rare occasion
that something goes wrong, perhaps you'd prefer one of these other
common means of copy-protection:

1) The hardware dongles that must be attached to the parallel port to
enable an application to work?

2) Faxing a document signed by a company officer certifying the
number of installations before
being sent a code to enable the software?

3) Performing the application installations at bizarre hours of the
night because you have to call another time-zone during the
installation in order to obtain the necessary registration code from a
company representative?

Perhaps you have a different idea about just what "convenience"
means, but I'll take the simplicity and convenience of WPA over the
alternatives, thank you very much.


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

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


"Rustler_Gates" wrote in message
...
Can't agree with that Bruce. I moved a Nic card from one slot to
another,
then came that nasty notice that I had to authenticate again, and as
you
no doubt know, the new authentication did not go through at all! It
required a phone
call and a waste of about five minutes time to call, explain, then
copy and install a
loooooong string of numbers. Excuse me, but like so
many others who have shelled out a gob of hard cash, that tends to
tweak
one's jaw a little bit. After that, and many thanks to one who
shall remain nameless, I
learned to use Vol ID in a manner that avoids that hassle.

You and the others who derive a living from installing, fixing,
selling or trouble
shooting ms software, to the tune of about $125 an hour I'd guess,
are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Greetings --

Specifically "proven," no; there's been no court trial of
Microsoft's specific EULA.

However, a federal court has ruled that, in principle, an EULA is
a legally binding and enforceable contract under the Uniform
Commercial Code, unless it has been proven to illegal. Further, since
no one has yet dared to challenge Microsoft's EULA in court -- not
even the Federal government and the several states' Attorneys General
who were suing to break up Microsoft -- we'll just have conclude that
a significant segment of the most prominent lawyers in the country
hold it valid.


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

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


"Greg R" wrote in message
...
Jupiter,
It has not be proven illegal. It is against the eula.
However, we don't know if the eula is legal either.

Greg R

"MS's eula is law"
Exactly where did I say this?
Or this?
"questioning it makes you a thief in their eyes"
You ineptitude at supporting your own position show brightly when you
feel the need to fabricate things said.

Whether your point is valid or not you have just proven you are
incapable and thus not up to the task of defending your point of view.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Woody" wrote in message
...
Greg don't even bother , as jj just said MS's eula is law and even
questioning it makes you a thief in their eyes .

Siles wrote:

"Woody" wrote in message
...


Greg don't even bother , as jj just said MS's eula is law and even
questioning it makes you a thief in their eyes .




DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge Case No. CV 00-04161 DDP
(AJWx) :

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly
suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For
example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with
documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of
the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license."
The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In
light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a
"shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.















This is priceless info! Please post the link where you found it. Thanks.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

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

Bruce Chambers wrote:

Greetings --

Rather then WPA and a 5 minute phone call on the rare occasion
that something goes wrong, perhaps you'd prefer one of these other
common means of copy-protection:

1) The hardware dongles that must be attached to the parallel port to
enable an application to work?

2) Faxing a document signed by a company officer certifying the
number of installations before
being sent a code to enable the software?

3) Performing the application installations at bizarre hours of the
night because you have to call another time-zone during the
installation in order to obtain the necessary registration code from a
company representative?

Perhaps you have a different idea about just what "convenience"
means, but I'll take the simplicity and convenience of WPA over the
alternatives, thank you very much.


Bruce Chambers


Perhaps this is M$'s only type of avenue of enforcement for their eula
because it would never stand up in a court of law for private,
non-commercial use.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

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

"hermes" wrote in message
...
Siles wrote:


DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge Case No. CV 00-04161 DDP
(AJWx) :

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction
strongly
suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For
example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software,
with
documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of
the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the
"license."
The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In
light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a
"shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.

This is priceless info! Please post the link where you found it. Thanks.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
Google under the case number. Be sure to include (AJWx). There are about 9
listings there.

Or perhaps this is the method Microsoft chose because Microsoft felt
it was a good compromise on protecting their interests and keeping it
simple for the users.
As usual there are two sides and this is a good example.
You often ignore the rights of the private business called
Microsoft...how convenient when one does not like to pay.

However this is almost a silly as licensing the banana as one of your
friends suggested.
The method Microsoft chose is Microsoft's business much as it is my
business to protect my property.
You have no business telling me how to protect my property.

Interesting to note that you apparently have absolutely nothing to say
in the form of an alternative.
If you are going to say WPA is bad, you need to give a viable
alternative.
1. An alternative that make it to difficult for typical users is
unacceptable.
2. An alternative that prevents Microsoft from protecting their
interests is also unacceptable.
3. Since Microsoft is making the product, Microsoft also gets to
determine the terms of use.

Now, give us a viable alternative that CLEARLY and EASILY meets #1 &
#2 above, we will wait on #3 till later.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"hermes" wrote in message
...
Perhaps this is M$'s only type of avenue of enforcement for their
eula
because it would never stand up in a court of law for private,
non-commercial use.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:01:10 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Or perhaps this is the method Microsoft chose because Microsoft felt
it was a good compromise on protecting their interests and keeping it
simple for the users.
As usual there are two sides and this is a good example.
You often ignore the rights of the private business called
Microsoft

This is because they ignore our rights to fair use for non-commercial
purposes. And I don't "ignore their rights" to protect their product. I
simply don't want them trampling all over my rights in the process.

....how convenient when one does not like to pay.

However this is almost a silly as licensing the banana as one of your
friends suggested.

Taking it to court is the method I have suggested time and time again.
How is this "almost as silly as licensing a banana"?

The method Microsoft chose is Microsoft's business much as it is my
business to protect my property.
You have no business telling me how to protect my property.

When have I told you how to protect your property?


Interesting to note that you apparently have absolutely nothing to say
in the form of an alternative.
If you are going to say WPA is bad, you need to give a viable
alternative.
1. An alternative that make it to difficult for typical users is
unacceptable.
2. An alternative that prevents Microsoft from protecting their
interests is also unacceptable.
3. Since Microsoft is making the product, Microsoft also gets to
determine the terms of use.

Now, give us a viable alternative that CLEARLY and EASILY meets #1 &
#2 above, we will wait on #3 till later.

Time and time again I have suggested taking it to court. THAT is the
method I have suggested. It meets 1, 2, &3 if they do it and succeed. If
they do not succeed, that would most likely be because they are violating
fair use rights and therefore should change the unconscionable parts of
their eula.

Speaking of which, for the purposes of this conversation, have we
determined what the "product" is?

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

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

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:52:53 +0000, Siles wrote:


"hermes" wrote in message
...
Siles wrote:


DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge Case No. CV 00-04161 DDP
(AJWx) :

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction
strongly
suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For
example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software,
with
documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of
the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the
"license."
The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In
light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a
"shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.

This is priceless info! Please post the link where you found it. Thanks.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
Google under the case number. Be sure to include (AJWx). There are about 9
listings there.

Thanks!

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

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

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

How does a book compare to Windows?
A book can not be used in more than one location at a time.
A book can not be copied so multiple users in different locations can
use at the same time.

Well - it can, but that is clearly and explicitly against copyright law.
And the EULA agreement has a similar standing.

It is difficult to get a really good analogy, but one I think comes
fairly near is a stage play. You can buy a printed copy (cf CD) and
lend it around, but if you want to present it on stage you have to get a
license and pay a royalty fee for each separate performance


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

People are just ticked that they can't buy a single copy and use it
on every PC they own, like in previous versions.

Microsoft just uses WPA/DRM to limit it's use to a single computer.
After years of a "Free Ride", many folks can't get over the end of
that. I still encounter people who won't buy/use any software that
uses "Activation".

WPA just technologically enforces their long standing EULA.
One Disk, One PID, One Hardware Hash -One Computer

But even that doesn't stop VLK, KeyGens and "White Lies" to the
product activation center.

I don't think there is an analogy to other commercial products
because few if any have Digital Rights Management built in.

"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
news
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

How does a book compare to Windows?
A book can not be used in more than one location at a time.
A book can not be copied so multiple users in different locations can
use at the same time.

Well - it can, but that is clearly and explicitly against copyright law.
And the EULA agreement has a similar standing.

It is difficult to get a really good analogy, but one I think comes
fairly near is a stage play. You can buy a printed copy (cf CD) and
lend it around, but if you want to present it on stage you have to get a
license and pay a royalty fee for each separate performance


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

"R. McCarty" wrote in message
nk.net...

People are just ticked that they can't buy a single copy and use it
on every PC they own, like in previous versions.

But that's the point - the EULA for EVERY version of windows since 3.11 has
stated the "one machine - one licence" clause. It's just that with XP,
Microsoft has found a method of enforcing it.

"Gordon" wrote

"R. McCarty" wrote

People are just ticked that they can't buy a single copy and use it
on every PC they own, like in previous versions.

But that's the point - the EULA for EVERY version of windows since 3.11
has
stated the "one machine - one licence" clause. It's just that with XP,
Microsoft has found a method of enforcing it.

Actually, they haven't. There are many cracked versions of XP out there. All
they've succeeded in doing is putting off the customers who PAY.

Alias

Yeah, That's what I was trying to say, is that a lot of postings
on this topic have their roots in the loss of something that they
were never entitled to in the first place. So complaining about
it (WPA) is pointless.

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
"R. McCarty" wrote in message
nk.net...

People are just ticked that they can't buy a single copy and use it
on every PC they own, like in previous versions.

But that's the point - the EULA for EVERY version of windows since 3.11
has
stated the "one machine - one licence" clause. It's just that with XP,
Microsoft has found a method of enforcing it.

Xp is the only software I have that requires activation. I will not
get any (non-operating system that has it) Unless I have too for
work purposes Norton lost me as a customer. Norton has many
activation problems with their anti-virus 2004.



Greg R