Re: Loading XP onto multiple computers

From: kurttrail (dontemailme_at_anywhereintheknownuniverse.net)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:12:45 -0400

Michael Stevens wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:eWVyjIiSEHA.3016@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Michael Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
>>>>> message news:uBxj2ROSEHA.3016@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> In news:1750e01c448df$2bab9af0$a401280a@phx.gbl,
>>>>>> Paul <paulhannum@comcast.net> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bought a computer for home office, getting another on
>>>>>>> ebay with no OS. Can I load the XP from the work
>>>>>>> computer onto my second computer? In other words, how
>>>>>>> many times can you load XP onto how many different
>>>>>>> machines? Anyone know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you can not. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one
>>>>>> license) for each computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
>>>>>> been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
>>>>>> 3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
>>>>>> enforcement mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually we should clarify this a little more. There is nothing to
>>>>> prevent a user from installing XP multiple times. However, they
>>>>> will not be able to activate the install. Because of way that WPA
>>>>> works there isn't a pre-check at install time. I've had a few
>>>>> people do the second install only to be faced with the activation
>>>>> failure. After years of multiple installs on a single OS license,
>>>>> it's sort of a rude awakening to discover product activation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An educated consumer can't be suckered by a convicted predatory
>>>> monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding members of the BSA
>>>> Trust http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
>>>>
>>>> What a consumer must do to believe that any copyright owner has the
>>>> exclusive right to their "fair use" of copyrighted material, as
>>>> demonstrated by Carey Frisch [MVP]
>>>> http://microscum.com/crapolammpafaq/
>>>
>>> You do realize you are guilty of doing the same as who you accuse?
>>
>> Nope!
>>
>
> Blinders are on!
>

LOL!

>>> You do not have a definitive ruling to back up your opinion and you
>>> are too afraid to commit your resources or risk you losing the FUD
>>> value of your opinion. Who is the real sucker?
>>
>> All the individuals that bought MS's EULA BS without any proof that
>> MS can strip them of their "fair use" rights.
>>
>>> I certainly don't believe the sucker is either the consumers that
>>> adheres to your opinion of the EULA or the EULA as defined in the
>>> agreement necessary to complete the setup of XP. How can you define
>>> something that has no real definition?
>>
>> What did I define? All I said is that an educated consumer can't be
>> suckered into by some greedy corporations nonsense. Or are you
>> refering to my definition of Carey?
>>
>
> Still have the blinders on I see.

ROFL!

>
>>> A convicted monopolist, copyright owner and developer of software
>>> still has the right to charge for their non-monopolistic products.
>>
>> Didn't say they didn't, but once an individual buys a copyrighted
>> product, that individual has "fair use" right to that copy of
>> copyrighted material.
>>
>
> Fair use defined only by your assessment, not by a defined ruling of
> law.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

The Supreme Court said "copyrighted work" of which software is just a
small subset.

>
>>> You seem in my opinion to lump PA in as a perceived byproduct of
>>> monopolistic behavior, but it is not monopolistic.
>>
>> Or the colluding members of the MPAA, RIAA, and the BSA. These
>> colluding corporate trusts greed has spawned the copy-protection to
>> make it harder for comsumers to practice "fair use," and to get more
>> money out of consumers for the same copyrighted material.
>>
>
> The colluding members are trying to protect their rights to earn a
> living for their intelectual property..
>

What member of the BSA is even near bankruptcy? The Symantecs, Adobes,
and Microsofts have made more than there "fair return" for the creative
labor of their employees.

"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 didn't say it was. "An educated consumer can't be suckered by a
>> convicted predatory monopolist, or by the rest of the colluding
>> members of the BSA Trust"
>>
>>> PA is the equivalent of department
>>> store security cameras and guards to reduce the theft of merchandise
>>> by people that think they deserve more than they pay for.
>>
>> I'm in my home, I already bought the product, and the copyright
>> owner has no business knowing what I do with it in my home.
>>
>
> You purchased it from the owner

I purchased my COPY from the previous owner, the RETAILER.

> and agreed to abide by it's licesiung
> agreement.

And then I choose to disregard those terms that are not applicable to me
as an individual, as the copyright owner doesn't possess the right to
limit my "fair use." The copyright owner would have to sue me, AND
convince a judge that they can shrinkwrap licence away my "fair use"
rights, until I believe any differently!

> If you didn't agree, you could not use the product.

Or I follow contact law, and ignore the terms that try to rewrite my
"fair use" rights, and wait for the copyright owner to prove
differently.

> You
> want more than you paid for, it is plain and simple.

No, I paid for a copy of copyrighted material, and I want to use
legally. "Fair Use" is not immoral, illegal, or getting more than you
paid for.

> I cut hair for a living. A client pays for a haircut, then when it
> needs to be cut again, they pay AGAIN for the same service.

Software is a copyrighted material not a service.

If they
> have other family members, it does not entitle the whole family to
> get a haircut. I make that decision as the owner of the intellectual
> property, I enforce it the same as PA would enforce it.

PA is all FUD & BS, and only preys on the uneducated individual
consumer, to get them to buy more copies of a particular copyrighted
work than they legally need to buy.

>
> licensing claims against IBM, any individual
>> that buys more than one copy of software is a total sucker, like
>> those few companies that have bought SCO's Linux use license.

Go buy a SCO license to run Linux, sucker, as long as you are accepting
the unproven licensing claims of software corporations. 

-- 
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"