PDA

View Full Version : Installation on more than one home computer



Pages : [1] 2

Ext User(NowItsWhatever)
01-06-2007, 11:03 PM
I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers. I installed XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps prompting me to officially register. It says I have X number of days to register. I am wondering whether I will be able to load it on other computers, or if Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out there know? Thanks.

Ext User(peter)
01-06-2007, 11:24 PM
We all know that your EULA says you are entitled to install it on only ONE
machine!!!!!!!!!!
You want it on 2 ...buy another copy.
peter
"NowItsWhatever" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AIK7i.1958$d63.268@trnddc06...
>I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers. I installed
>XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps prompting me to
>officially register. It says I have X number of days to register. I am
>wondering whether I will be able to load it on other computers, or if
>Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out there know? Thanks.

Ext User(Patrick Keenan)
01-06-2007, 11:43 PM
"NowItsWhatever" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AIK7i.1958$d63.268@trnddc06...
>I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.

Not legally, you weren't.

> I installed XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps
> prompting me to officially register. It says I have X number of days to
> register. I am wondering whether I will be able to load it on other
> computers, or if Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out there
> know? Thanks.

===
It's not asking you to register. It's asking you to activate, and it isn't
optional.

With one exception, all versions of Windows are licensed to one system per
install key (though in fact there's also a limit on the number of processors
per system). The one exception is the Volume License packaging of XP
Pro, where licenses are purchased in multiples of five, and a single key is
used. However, if the key is found to be abused, it may be blacklisted and
activation, validation and updates are blocked.

Activation and Windows validatation enforces this restriction, so that while
you can install more than once, without activation you have only a short
time to use the system, and you can't get many updates.

This is not a change from the licensing of any previous version. The only
difference is that technology exists to enforce the license.

If you want to use Windows on more than one machine, you have to pay for it.
If you don't want to do that, there's an option called Linux.

HTH
-pk

Ext User(Bruce Chambers)
01-06-2007, 11:53 PM
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.


True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
piracy you committed.


> I
> installed XP Media Center Edition on one of my computers and it keeps
> prompting me to officially register. It says I have X number of days to
> register.


Registration is entirely optional. However, if you fail to *activate*
that copy of WinXP within the alloted time frame, it will cease to
function properly until activated.


> I am wondering whether I will be able to load it on other
> computers, or if Microsoft limits the installation. Does anyone out
> there know? Thanks.


How can you even ask this question? Have you been living in a cave
somewhere for the last 5 years?

You need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer on
which you install it.

Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it
is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which WinXP
licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that
Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism,
Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult)
multiple installations using a single license.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Ext User(M.I.5)
02-06-2007, 01:34 AM
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>
>
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license terms,
> so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software piracy
> you committed.
>

The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A licence
agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.

Ext User(Shenan Stanley)
02-06-2007, 01:44 AM
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide
> by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the
> sort of casual software piracy you committed.

M.I.5 wrote:
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
> entitled in law to do.

The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are allowed to
make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other
words - the copy is not for archival purposes.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Ext User(Rock)
02-06-2007, 01:53 AM
"M.I.5" wrote
>
> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>> piracy you committed.

> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.

Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on multiple
computes.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Ext User(M.I.5)
02-06-2007, 02:03 AM
"Rock" <Rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "M.I.5" wrote
>>
>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>
>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>>> piracy you committed.
>
>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
>> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
>> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>
> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
> multiple computes.
>

Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something the
software suppliers want you to believe.

Ext User(Og)
02-06-2007, 02:16 AM
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Rock" <Rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "M.I.5" wrote
>>>
>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>
>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>>>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>>>> piracy you committed.
>>
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
>>> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
>>> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>
>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>> multiple computes.
>>
>
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
> the software suppliers want you to believe.

"Backup" as in keep a copy off-site.
If your house burns down, you have to buy a replacement computer.
Although your _original_ software packages have gone up in smoke, you don't
have to buy replacement software to load onto that computer because you have
"backup" copies of that software.
Steve

Ext User(Shenan Stanley)
02-06-2007, 02:36 AM
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.

M.I.5 wrote
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
> entitled in law to do.

Rock wrote:
> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
> multiple computes.

M.I.5 wrote:
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
> believe.

Repeating my last post in this conversation...

The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are allowed to
make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other
words - the copy is not for archival purposes.

Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )

Specifically:

(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 computer program should cease to be rightful.

The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for
archival purposes only ...".


Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Ext User(John John)
02-06-2007, 02:43 AM
M.I.5 wrote:

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>
>>>I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>>
>>True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license terms,
>>so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software piracy
>>you committed.
>>
>
>
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A licence
> agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.

Under US law (17 U.S.C. 117(2).) you have the lawful right to make
backup (archieval copies) of your software package or cd. The law *does
not* permit you to install multiple instances of the software to
multiple computers.

John

Ext User(John John)
02-06-2007, 03:03 AM
M.I.5 wrote:

> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something the
> software suppliers want you to believe.

OK, so lets say a large outfit, like, hmmm, for example... Citibank,
which might have, oh about 100,000 computers across all their branches
and offices, they would be allowed to make copies of any software that
they bought and install it to all 100,000 computers without paying for
additional licenses?

John

Ext User(NowItsWhatever)
02-06-2007, 03:36 AM
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
>> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
>> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
>> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.
>
> M.I.5 wrote
>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
>> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
>> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
>> entitled in law to do.
>
> Rock wrote:
>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>> multiple computes.
>
> M.I.5 wrote:
>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
>> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
>> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
>> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
>> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
>> believe.
>
> Repeating my last post in this conversation...
>
> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are allowed to
> make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other
> words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
>
> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
>
> Specifically:
>
> (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 computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for
> archival purposes only ...".
>
>
> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material.
>

Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would indeed be created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with *A* machine.

I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from my CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with software....

Ext User(Daave)
02-06-2007, 03:36 AM
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
>>> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
>>> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
>>> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.
>>
>> M.I.5 wrote
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
>>> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
>>> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
>>> entitled in law to do.
>>
>> Rock wrote:
>>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>>> multiple computes.
>>
>> M.I.5 wrote:
>>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
>>> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
>>> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
>>> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
>>> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
>>> believe.
>>
>> Repeating my last post in this conversation...
>>
>> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are
>> allowed to
>> make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In
>> other
>> words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
>>
>> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
>> programs
>>
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
>> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> (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 computer program should cease to be rightful.
>>
>> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for
>> archival purposes only ...".
>>
>>
>> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material.
>>
>
> Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would
> indeed be created as an essential step in the utilization of the
> computer program in conjunction with *A* machine.

"that it is used in *no other manner*" (my emphasis)

IMO, the language could be more precise. But then again, I'm not a
lawyer. I would imagine this sentence is clear enough to those in that
discipline. My guess is that this covers a situation where you create a
disk from a hidden partition so that you may later restore your PC to
its original state.

> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from
> my CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with software....

You may want to consult with an attorney first. :-)

Ext User(John John)
02-06-2007, 03:36 AM
NowItsWhatever wrote:

> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
>>> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
>>> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
>>> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.
>>
>>
>> M.I.5 wrote
>>
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
>>> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
>>> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
>>> entitled in law to do.
>>
>>
>> Rock wrote:
>>
>>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>>> multiple computes.
>>
>>
>> M.I.5 wrote:
>>
>>> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
>>> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
>>> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
>>> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
>>> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
>>> believe.
>>
>>
>> Repeating my last post in this conversation...
>>
>> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are
>> allowed to
>> make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual use. In other
>> words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
>>
>> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
>> programs
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
>>
>> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> (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 computer program should cease to be rightful.
>>
>> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "... for
>> archival purposes only ...".
>>
>>
>> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright material.
>>
>
> Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would indeed
> be created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer
> program in conjunction with *A* machine.
>
> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from my
> CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with software....

You are believing wrong. The copyright law it applies to artistic works
is different than as it applies to software. The law *does* *not*
permit you to install the same copy of the software to more than one
computer. The law simply allows you to make backup copies to be used in
case the original copy is lost or damaged.

John

Ext User(Shenan Stanley)
02-06-2007, 03:49 AM
NowItsWhatever wrote:
> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days,
> Microsoft was naive enough to expect people to be honest and
> abide by the license terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent
> the sort of casual software piracy you committed.

M.I.5 wrote
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted
> material for your own personal use only. This is known as 'first
> use rights'. A licence agreement cannot change what you are
> entitled in law to do.

Rock wrote:
> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
> multiple computes.

M.I.5 wrote:
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a
> copy of copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy
> obviously), for you own personal use. The copyright act makes no
> specification as to what you use it for. This busines of a 'backup
> copy' only is just something the software suppliers want you to
> believe.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> The only problem is that *in this case* - the backup copy you are
> allowed to make is not being used as backup copy - but is in actual
> use. In other words - the copy is not for archival purposes.
>
> Title 17, Chapter 1, 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
> programs
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html
> ( or: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 )
> Specifically:
>
> (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 computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> The part that should be of interest to this conversation is, "...
> for archival purposes only ...".
>
>
> Of course - this assumes you are speaking of U.S. Copyright
> material.

NowItsWhatever wrote:
> Regarding item 1 from your cut/paste above: Yes, the copy would
> indeed be created as an essential step in the utilization of the
> computer program in conjunction with *A* machine.

No it wouldn't.
Installation - which has its own internal copy/expansion methods for doing
so - is necessary to utilize the software on *A* machine.

NowItsWhatever wrote:
> I believe I can legally create compilations or copies of music from
> my CD collection. Seems I should be able to do it with
> software....

You can - but if you actually read what I posted (the links in particular)
you would see that Music and Software do not follow the same scope and the
section I posted above was specifically for software (Computer Programs).

You want the copyright scope for music?
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114

The whole thing:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

You can do what you want - but since copyright law was brought up - these
are the facts as written.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Ext User(Patrick Keenan)
02-06-2007, 04:07 AM
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fd94f$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:ebtVUp$oHHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>
>>
>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>> piracy you committed.
>>
>
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.

Perhaps you don't quite understand how the actual law applies to the actual
practice described.

The law may well allow you to make a copy of the media, primarily for
backup purposes, but it does not allow you to copy, redistribute and
reinstall the material beyond the license terms. And that's what the OP
is talking about doing.

If you wish to challenge this, by all means, consult with an intellectual
property lawyer and have your rights explained to you. And if you still
want to proceed, expect to pay for several years in litigation.

And I believe that you may actually be referring to first-sale rights, not
first-use rights.

HTH
-pk

Ext User(Phil Weldon)
02-06-2007, 08:43 AM
'M.I.5' wrote:
| Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
| copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
| you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
| you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
the
| software suppliers want you to believe.
_____

You do not 'buy' a Microsoft operating system. You buy a license to USE the
operating system.
Since you are convinced to the contrary, be careful how you use what you do
not own.

Phil Weldon

"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
|
| "Rock" <Rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
| news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > "wrote
| >>
| >> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
| >>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
| >>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
| >>>
| >>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft
was
| >>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
| >>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual
software
| >>> piracy you committed.
| >
| >> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material
for
| >> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
| >> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
| >
| > Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
| > multiple computes.
| >
|
| Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
| copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
| you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
| you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
the
| software suppliers want you to believe.
|
|

Ext User(Rock)
02-06-2007, 09:43 AM
"M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465fe9e5$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Rock" <Rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BPTO1CpHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> "M.I.5" wrote
>>>
>>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote
>>>> NowItsWhatever wrote:
>>>>> I was able to install Windows 2000 on multiple home computers.
>>>>
>>>> True, but not without violating the EULA. In those days, Microsoft was
>>>> naive enough to expect people to be honest and abide by the license
>>>> terms, so there was no mechanism to prevent the sort of casual software
>>>> piracy you committed.
>>
>>> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
>>> your own personal use only. This is known as 'first use rights'. A
>>> licence agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>>
>> Making a backup copy is different than installing the same copy on
>> multiple computes.
>>
>
> Where does 'backup copy' come into it. You are entitled to make a copy of
> copyrighted material (for which you own a legitimate copy obviously), for
> you own personal use. The copyright act makes no specification as to what
> you use it for. This busines of a 'backup copy' only is just something
> the software suppliers want you to believe.


I don't understand your position here. Making a copy is fine. Installing
that copy on multiple machines is a violation of the EULA. What's your
point?

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Ext User(Bruce Chambers)
02-06-2007, 11:33 AM
M.I.5 wrote:
>
>
> The copyright act permits you to make a copy of copyrighted material for
> your own personal use only.


The "copyright act" of what country? U.S. copyright law is very
specific. What the law specifically allows is a single copy for
*archival* (back-up) purposes only.

TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 1 , Sec. 117.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

> This is known as 'first use rights'.


There's no such recognized term under U.S. Code, that I can find. Of
what specific country are you speaking?



> A licence
> agreement cannot change what you are entitled in law to do.
>


That's true. All you need do is take Microsoft to court and have their
EULA found to be in violation of that purported law you mention. Until
then, Microsoft is perfectly entitled to enforce their EULA as they see
fit, in accordance with existing case law.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Hosted by: Eyo Technologies Pty Ltd. Sponsored by: Actiontec Pty Ltd