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
  #61  
Old December 27th 03, 06:41 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

"kurttrail" wrote in
:

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!


But. You "Bought" Windows XP. You transffered cash and got a Receipt.
Since you bought, and "OWN" XP. You should be able to do whatever you
want with it. You Own it now. According to you. How is it you "Own"
something, yet have no rights with it??

Microsoft bought DOS form Seattle Computer Products' Tim Patterson, the
creator of DOS. Since they bought DOS. They had the rights to copy,
improve, and sell DOS. Why don't you have these rights with Windows now
that you "Bought" it?

Could it be that you never "bought" Windows. Just merely a license to
use it?

David
Ads
  #62  
Old December 27th 03, 06:41 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default using windows on two computers

David wrote:

"kurttrail" wrote in
:

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!


But. You "Bought" Windows XP. You transffered cash and got a Receipt.
Since you bought, and "OWN" XP. You should be able to do whatever you
want with it. You Own it now. According to you. How is it you "Own"
something, yet have no rights with it??

Microsoft bought DOS form Seattle Computer Products' Tim Patterson,
the creator of DOS. Since they bought DOS. They had the rights to
copy, improve, and sell DOS. Why don't you have these rights with
Windows now that you "Bought" it?

Could it be that you never "bought" Windows. Just merely a license to
use it?


I'm not claiming any of the rights of copyright ownership. I'm arguing
that MS's post-sale license is not a legitimate software usage license,
that only confers limited rights to use a *copy* of software, but is
only a shrinkwrap license on a retail *copy* of software, which is sold
to the new owner of that *copy* by the retailer. Congress put certain
limitations on the rights of copyright owners, in other words, they gave
owners of a *copy* the right to infringe in certain circumstances. [And
under certain circumstances one does not even need to be an owner of a
*copy* in order to legally infringe, though none of those circumstances
are applicable to this discussion.] I never claimed to own the
copyright, just the *copy* *of* *software* that was sold to me by
previous owner of that *copy*, the retailer.

What is a *copy*? "'*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

Owner of *Copy* and owner of Copyright are two separate & distinct
things under Title 17. *Copies* are material objects, or property, and
Copyright is not.

Which brings us back to Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117, and MS's
post-sale attempt to rewrite it through a shrinkwrap license. The
*copy* *of* *software* is sold to you, thus you are the owner of a
*copy*, and Congress through Copyright law gave owners of a *copy* *of*
*software* the right to infringe.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.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!"


  #63  
Old December 27th 03, 07:17 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #64  
Old December 27th 03, 07:18 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #65  
Old December 27th 03, 07:18 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #66  
Old December 27th 03, 07:21 PM
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #67  
Old December 27th 03, 07:22 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #68  
Old December 27th 03, 07:22 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #69  
Old December 27th 03, 07:23 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #70  
Old December 27th 03, 07:24 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #71  
Old December 27th 03, 07:24 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #72  
Old December 27th 03, 07:26 PM
Michael Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #73  
Old December 27th 03, 07:27 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #74  
Old December 27th 03, 07:27 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!"


  #75  
Old December 27th 03, 07:29 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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 04:52 PM.


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