Gary Tait

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:48 GMT, webworm10@deletethis.lycos.com (Greg
P) wrote:

>Actual you could purchase a additional license without
>Having to purchase another copy.
>

But often it doesn't cost much more for a whole other CD+License than
a license alone. Besides, it is good to have a second CD around, in
case.


>Also, If one of you computer already has an xp oem
>Don’t install the oem on that computer.
>
>You can network your computers together without
>putting xp on the other computer
>
>Greg P Rozelle

kurttrail

By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Gary Tait wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:59:31 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> "By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing
>> or replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
>> ever and ever! Amen!"
>>
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> In news:02c101c3cf2c$03273e40$a601280a@phx.gbl,
>>> Samir <jamescraig@ntlworld.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> Hello i wonder if you could help,
>>>>
>>>> I have just purchased Windows XP Home edition OEM. I
>>>> have two PC's networked together in my living room and i
>>>> was wondering if i could use the same copy on both PC's
>>>> or will i have to purchase a second copy.
>>>
>>>
>>> The rule is quite clear.
>>
>> And by what authority does MS have for imposing rules in any
>> individuals home? It's a "vapor-license."
>>
>
> The OS is their property. What you purchase with the media, is the
> right to install the software contained on that media on only one PC.
>

It is their copyrighted material. IT IS NOT REAL PROPERTY. The real
property would be the copy of software, the installation media or CD,
which is owned by the consumer, not MS.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Product Activation. "Vapor-license enforcement" for a
>> "vapor-license."
>
> No, for a very real license YOU believe to be unenforcable.

It's a "vapor-license" as long as MS refuses to legally enforce it.
Over a decade and still counting! LOL!

--
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!"

try http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?
action=c2hvd3N1YmNhdGVnb3J5X3NlYXJjaA==&cat_uid=11
>-----Original Message-----
>kurttrail wrote:
>
>>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft
>operating
>>> systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both
>the EULA, if
>>> not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for
each
>computer on
>>> which it is installed.
>>
>>"And from what accredited American and Canadian
>universities did you
>>obtain your law degrees? What specific case law and
>court decisions can
>>you cite to support your interpretation of the relevant
>laws? Until you
>>can offer such credentials and documentation, your
>opinions carry no
>>more weight than anyone else's." - Bwucey to Ian
>Merrithew, in the
>>thread, "Product Re-Activation."
>>
>>So don't you think that Bwucey is a hypocrite for asking
>someone else,
>>"What specific case law and court decisions can you cite
>to support your
>>interpretation of the relevant laws," when Bwucey can't
>even come up
>>with the specific "relevant laws" that backs up his own
>opinion, let
>>alone come up with "specific case law and court
>decisions" on top of
>>that?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Now here is where Bwucey is out & out lieing. He know
>full well that
>>versions of Windows before 3.1 didn't even have the "One
>Computer" EULA
>>term, so XP "licensing" differs from earlier versions in
>more ways than
>>PA.
>>
>>"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single
>integrated
>>product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." -
>Windows XP Pro OEM
>>EULA, prior to SP1.
>>
>>"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single
>integrated
>>product and may only be used with the COMPUTER." -
>Windows XP Pro SP1
>>OEM EULA.
>>
>>Hell, there are differences between the "licensing" of
>OEM WinXP and OEM
>>WinXPSP1.
>>
>>Bwucey Chumpers, a hypocrite and a liar. Oh, and he's a
>coward too!
>>Has to hide from those of us who aren't afraid to tell
>the truth.
>>Bwucey wouldn't want reality to mess up his little dream
>world.
>
>Happy New Year, Bwucey!
>
>And so far, not a single person disputes that fact that
>you are a cowardly, lying hypocrite!
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>--
>Ken Fake - Microscum MVP Windows: Shell Collector
>Please reply to the voices in your head
>.
>

kurttrail

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft
>> operating
>>>> systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both
>> the EULA, if
>>>> not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for
> each
>> computer on
>>>> which it is installed.
>>>
>>> "And from what accredited American and Canadian
>> universities did you
>>> obtain your law degrees? What specific case law and
>> court decisions can
>>> you cite to support your interpretation of the relevant
>> laws? Until you
>>> can offer such credentials and documentation, your
>> opinions carry no
>>> more weight than anyone else's." - Bwucey to Ian
>> Merrithew, in the
>>> thread, "Product Re-Activation."
>>>
>>> So don't you think that Bwucey is a hypocrite for asking
>> someone else,
>>> "What specific case law and court decisions can you cite
>> to support your
>>> interpretation of the relevant laws," when Bwucey can't
>> even come up
>>> with the specific "relevant laws" that backs up his own
>> opinion, let
>>> alone come up with "specific case law and court
>> decisions" on top of
>>> that?
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Now here is where Bwucey is out & out lieing. He know
>> full well that
>>> versions of Windows before 3.1 didn't even have the "One
>> Computer" EULA
>>> term, so XP "licensing" differs from earlier versions in
>> more ways than
>>> PA.
>>>
>>> "The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single
>> integrated
>>> product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." -
>> Windows XP Pro OEM
>>> EULA, prior to SP1.
>>>
>>> "The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single
>> integrated
>>> product and may only be used with the COMPUTER." -
>> Windows XP Pro SP1
>>> OEM EULA.
>>>
>>> Hell, there are differences between the "licensing" of
>> OEM WinXP and OEM
>>> WinXPSP1.
>>>
>>> Bwucey Chumpers, a hypocrite and a liar. Oh, and he's a
>> coward too!
>>> Has to hide from those of us who aren't afraid to tell
>> the truth.
>>> Bwucey wouldn't want reality to mess up his little dream
>> world.
>>
>> Happy New Year, Bwucey!
>>
>> And so far, not a single person disputes that fact that
>> you are a cowardly, lying hypocrite!
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
> try http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?
> action=c2hvd3N1YmNhdGVnb3J5X3NlYXJjaA==&cat_uid=11

Link wrapping won't work through the CDO Web Interface to this group.

--
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!"

Ken Blake

In news:3ff226a5.33004227@news.microsoft.com,
Greg P <webworm10@deletethis.lycos.com> typed:

> Actual you could purchase a additional license without
> Having to purchase another copy.


Although that's true, a second license isn't usually a good deal.
It's normally less expensive to buy a complete second copy from a
discount source.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



> Also, If one of you computer already has an xp oem
> Don’t install the oem on that computer.
>
> You can network your computers together without
> putting xp on the other computer
>
> Greg P Rozelle

David

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in
news:Ofbpo27zDHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
> replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
> ever and ever! Amen!"
>
> Gary Tait wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:59:31 -0500, "kurttrail"
>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>>
>>> "By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing
>>> or replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord
&
>>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
>>> ever and ever! Amen!"
>>>
>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:02c101c3cf2c$03273e40$a601280a@phx.gbl,
>>>> Samir <jamescraig@ntlworld.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello i wonder if you could help,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just purchased Windows XP Home edition OEM. I
>>>>> have two PC's networked together in my living room and i
>>>>> was wondering if i could use the same copy on both PC's
>>>>> or will i have to purchase a second copy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The rule is quite clear.
>>>
>>> And by what authority does MS have for imposing rules in any
>>> individuals home? It's a "vapor-license."
>>>
>>
>> The OS is their property. What you purchase with the media, is the
>> right to install the software contained on that media on only one PC.
>>
>
> It is their copyrighted material. IT IS NOT REAL PROPERTY. The real
> property would be the copy of software, the installation media or CD,
> which is owned by the consumer, not MS.

Commets enclosed within <> added by me.

§ 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which
the work is embodied <the CD>. Transfer of ownership of any material
object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first
fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work
embodied in the object <The software>; nor, in the absence of an
agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive
rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.

In other words, Kurt, you bought the CD. Not the Software. Why can't
you get this through your thick head?

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition
contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the
2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

3) As used in this subsection —

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a
scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if
the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Your little "Microscum" website that you claim to be parody, But, in
fact, describes a method to circumvent WPA is illegal.

But, then, I know you're going to try to twist and re-intuetrept to
your satisfaction.

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/


--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

kurttrail

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

David wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in
> news:Ofbpo27zDHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>
>> By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing
>> or replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
>> ever and ever! Amen!"
>>
>> Gary Tait wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:59:31 -0500, "kurttrail"
>>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or
>>>> printing or replying to this post, you agree that I am your
>>>> everlasting Lord
> &
>>>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell
>>>> for ever and ever! Amen!"
>>>>
>>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:02c101c3cf2c$03273e40$a601280a@phx.gbl,
>>>>> Samir <jamescraig@ntlworld.com> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello i wonder if you could help,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have just purchased Windows XP Home edition OEM. I
>>>>>> have two PC's networked together in my living room and i
>>>>>> was wondering if i could use the same copy on both PC's
>>>>>> or will i have to purchase a second copy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rule is quite clear.
>>>>
>>>> And by what authority does MS have for imposing rules in any
>>>> individuals home? It's a "vapor-license."
>>>>
>>>
>>> The OS is their property. What you purchase with the media, is the
>>> right to install the software contained on that media on only one
>>> PC.
>>>
>>
>> It is their copyrighted material. IT IS NOT REAL PROPERTY. The real
>> property would be the copy of software, the installation media or CD,
>> which is owned by the consumer, not MS.
>
> Commets enclosed within <> added by me.
>
> § 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
> object
> Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
> copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which
> the work is embodied <the CD>. Transfer of ownership of any material
> object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first
> fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work
> embodied in the object <The software>; nor, in the absence of an
> agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any
> exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any
> material object.
>
> In other words, Kurt, you bought the CD. Not the Software. Why can't
> you get this through your thick head?
>

What don't you understand about the software not being property? The
software isn't owned by MS either, they own the copyright to the
software, hence the title, "Ownership of copyright as distinct from
ownership of material object <real physical property>."

> § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
> (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. —
> (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
> effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The
> prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at
> the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
> of this chapter.
>
> 3) As used in this subsection —
>
> (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a
> scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
> bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
> the authority of the copyright owner; and
>
> (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if
> the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
> application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
> authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
>
> Your little "Microscum" website that you claim to be parody, But, in
> fact, describes a method to circumvent WPA is illegal.

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations,
or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this
title. - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html

LOL! Which brings us right back to the "limitation" Congress placed on
computer copyright owners, Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

ROFL! I've been down this road before with others. Besides which, I
think my 1st Amendment Rights would trump the DMCA, if MS ever tried to
invoke the DMCA to get my page removed.

And a Princeton grad-student just was threaten with the DMCA for posting
information about circumventing a type of CD copy-protection made by
SunnComm Technologies, but SunnComm decided not to peruse a losing
cause.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5089448.html

>
> But, then, I know you're going to try to twist and re-intuetrept to
> your satisfaction.
>
> Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Twist? I don't have to twist anything, as the law is on my side!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--
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!"

Gary Tait

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:25:04 -0500, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:

>"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
>replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
>Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
>ever and ever! Amen!"
>
> David wrote:
>
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in
>> news:Ofbpo27zDHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing
>>> or replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
>>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
>>> ever and ever! Amen!"
>>>
>>> Gary Tait wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:59:31 -0500, "kurttrail"
>>>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or
>>>>> printing or replying to this post, you agree that I am your
>>>>> everlasting Lord
>> &
>>>>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell
>>>>> for ever and ever! Amen!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:02c101c3cf2c$03273e40$a601280a@phx.gbl,
>>>>>> Samir <jamescraig@ntlworld.com> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello i wonder if you could help,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have just purchased Windows XP Home edition OEM. I
>>>>>>> have two PC's networked together in my living room and i
>>>>>>> was wondering if i could use the same copy on both PC's
>>>>>>> or will i have to purchase a second copy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rule is quite clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> And by what authority does MS have for imposing rules in any
>>>>> individuals home? It's a "vapor-license."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The OS is their property. What you purchase with the media, is the
>>>> right to install the software contained on that media on only one
>>>> PC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is their copyrighted material. IT IS NOT REAL PROPERTY. The real
>>> property would be the copy of software, the installation media or CD,
>>> which is owned by the consumer, not MS.
>>
>> Commets enclosed within <> added by me.
>>
>> § 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
>> object
>> Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
>> copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which
>> the work is embodied <the CD>. Transfer of ownership of any material
>> object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first
>> fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work
>> embodied in the object <The software>; nor, in the absence of an
>> agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any
>> exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any
>> material object.
>>
>> In other words, Kurt, you bought the CD. Not the Software. Why can't
>> you get this through your thick head?
>>
>
>What don't you understand about the software not being property? The
>software isn't owned by MS either, they own the copyright to the
>software, hence the title, "Ownership of copyright as distinct from
>ownership of material object <real physical property>."

And by that, your ownership of the media does not equate your outright
ownership of the software. The license included with the media
constitutes your right to use the software, and with that, the license
that comes with most instances of XP is explicitly for 1(one) PC.

>
>> § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
>> (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. —
>> (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
>> effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The
>> prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at
>> the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
>> of this chapter.
>>
>> 3) As used in this subsection —
>>
>> (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a
>> scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
>> bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
>> the authority of the copyright owner; and
>>
>> (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if
>> the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
>> application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
>> authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
>>
>> Your little "Microscum" website that you claim to be parody, But, in
>> fact, describes a method to circumvent WPA is illegal.
>
>(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -
>(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations,
>or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this
>title. - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html
>
>LOL! Which brings us right back to the "limitation" Congress placed on
>computer copyright owners, Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117.
>
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>
>ROFL! I've been down this road before with others. Besides which, I
>think my 1st Amendment Rights would trump the DMCA, if MS ever tried to
>invoke the DMCA to get my page removed.
>
>And a Princeton grad-student just was threaten with the DMCA for posting
>information about circumventing a type of CD copy-protection made by
>SunnComm Technologies, but SunnComm decided not to peruse a losing
>cause.
>
>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5089448.html
>
>>
>> But, then, I know you're going to try to twist and re-intuetrept to
>> your satisfaction.
>>
>> Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
>
>Twist? I don't have to twist anything, as the law is on my side!
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gary Tait

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:39:57 -0800, David <carpooldummy@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
>(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)
>(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
>controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition
>contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the
>2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
>
> 3) As used in this subsection —
>
>(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a
>scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
>bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
>the authority of the copyright owner; and
>
>(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if
>the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
>application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
>authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

IMO, defeating the underlying security protocol to illicitly operate
software is one thing (what the DMCA is for and about), but lieing to
get such access is a whole other thing (which IMO, MS should up and
say no to, at least for OEM versions)

Crusty \(-: Old B@stard :-\)

Gary! Leave Kurt be. He's a very sick man!

"Gary Tait" <classicsat@yahoo.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:u847vvk2nnpe560qt7ejdm1qd6t4vbq6nq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:39:57 -0800, David <carpooldummy@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
> >(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)
> >(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
> >controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition
> >contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the
> >2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
> >
> > 3) As used in this subsection -
> >
> >(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a
> >scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
> >bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
> >the authority of the copyright owner; and
> >
> >(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if
> >the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
> >application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
> >authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
>
> IMO, defeating the underlying security protocol to illicitly operate
> software is one thing (what the DMCA is for and about), but lieing to
> get such access is a whole other thing (which IMO, MS should up and
> say no to, at least for OEM versions)
>

kurttrail

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Gary Tait wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:25:04 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> "By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing
>> or replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
>> ever and ever! Amen!"
>>
>> David wrote:
>>
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in
>>> news:Ofbpo27zDHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing
>>>> or replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting
>>>> Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in
>>>> hell for ever and ever! Amen!"
>>>>
>>>> Gary Tait wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:59:31 -0500, "kurttrail"
>>>>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or
>>>>>> printing or replying to this post, you agree that I am your
>>>>>> everlasting Lord
>>> &
>>>>>> Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell
>>>>>> for ever and ever! Amen!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In news:02c101c3cf2c$03273e40$a601280a@phx.gbl,
>>>>>>> Samir <jamescraig@ntlworld.com> typed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello i wonder if you could help,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have just purchased Windows XP Home edition OEM. I
>>>>>>>> have two PC's networked together in my living room and i
>>>>>>>> was wondering if i could use the same copy on both PC's
>>>>>>>> or will i have to purchase a second copy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rule is quite clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And by what authority does MS have for imposing rules in any
>>>>>> individuals home? It's a "vapor-license."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The OS is their property. What you purchase with the media, is the
>>>>> right to install the software contained on that media on only one
>>>>> PC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is their copyrighted material. IT IS NOT REAL PROPERTY. The
>>>> real property would be the copy of software, the installation
>>>> media or CD, which is owned by the consumer, not MS.
>>>
>>> Commets enclosed within <> added by me.
>>>
>>> § 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of
>>> material object
>>> Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
>>> copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in
>>> which the work is embodied <the CD>. Transfer of ownership of any
>>> material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the
>>> work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the
>>> copyrighted work embodied in the object <The software>; nor, in the
>>> absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright
>>> or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights
>>> in any material object.
>>>
>>> In other words, Kurt, you bought the CD. Not the Software. Why
>>> can't you get this through your thick head?
>>>
>>
>> What don't you understand about the software not being property? The
>> software isn't owned by MS either, they own the copyright to the
>> software, hence the title, "Ownership of copyright as distinct from
>> ownership of material object <real physical property>."
>
> And by that, your ownership of the media does not equate your outright
> ownership of the software. The license included with the media
> constitutes your right to use the software, and with that, the license
> that comes with most instances of XP is explicitly for 1(one) PC.

And Copyright Law limits computer program copyright owners, saying:

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 . . . .

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 a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another installation provided:

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making
use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that
it is used in no other manner, or . . . .

Installation -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...rch=adaptation

made -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...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

So MS has no rights under the law to specify what computer I install my
COPY of software.

>
>>
>>> § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
>>> (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. -
>>> (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
>>> effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
>>> The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take
>>> effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the
>>> enactment of this chapter.
>>>
>>> 3) As used in this subsection -
>>>
>>> (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a
>>> scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
>>> bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure,
>>> without the authority of the copyright owner; and
>>>
>>> (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work"
>>> if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires
>>> the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with
>>> the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
>>>
>>> Your little "Microscum" website that you claim to be parody, But,
>>> in fact, describes a method to circumvent WPA is illegal.
>>
>> (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -
>> (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies,
>> limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair
>> use, under this title. -
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html
>>
>> LOL! Which brings us right back to the "limitation" Congress placed
>> on computer copyright owners, Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117.
>>
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
>>
>> ROFL! I've been down this road before with others. Besides which, I
>> think my 1st Amendment Rights would trump the DMCA, if MS ever tried
>> to invoke the DMCA to get my page removed.
>>
>> And a Princeton grad-student just was threaten with the DMCA for
>> posting information about circumventing a type of CD copy-protection
>> made by SunnComm Technologies, but SunnComm decided not to peruse a
>> losing cause.
>>
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5089448.html
>>
>>>
>>> But, then, I know you're going to try to twist and re-intuetrept
>>> to your satisfaction.
>>>
>>> Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
>>
>> Twist? I don't have to twist anything, as the law is on my side!
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



--
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!"

kurttrail

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Gary Tait wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:39:57 -0800, David <carpooldummy@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2
>> (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. -
>> (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
>> effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
>> The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take
>> effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the
>> enactment of this chapter.
>>
>> 3) As used in this subsection -
>>
>> (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a
>> scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid,
>> bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure,
>> without the authority of the copyright owner; and
>>
>> (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work"
>> if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
>> application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
>> authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
>
> IMO, defeating the underlying security protocol to illicitly operate
> software is one thing (what the DMCA is for and about), but lieing to
> get such access is a whole other thing (which IMO, MS should up and
> say no to, at least for OEM versions)

You don't have to lie about anything as long as MS is telling the truth.

"The only information required to activate is an installation ID (and,
for Office XP and Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the name
of the country in which the product is being installed)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basi...aq.asp#details

Who has to lie about the installation ID?

Get real, Gary. I know what I'm talking about.

--
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!"

kurttrail

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"

Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) wrote:

> Gary! Leave Kurt be. He's a very sick man!

ROFL! Happy New Year, Crusty!

--
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!"

David

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
news:eEhRFtI0DHA.2116@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:


>> IMO, defeating the underlying security protocol to illicitly operate
>> software is one thing (what the DMCA is for and about), but lieing to
>> get such access is a whole other thing (which IMO, MS should up and
>> say no to, at least for OEM versions)
>
> You don't have to lie about anything as long as MS is telling the
truth.
>
> "The only information required to activate is an installation ID (and,
> for Office XP and Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the
name
> of the country in which the product is being installed)." -
> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basi...aq.asp#details
>
> Who has to lie about the installation ID?
>
> Get real, Gary. I know what I'm talking about.
>

Since when?

--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/

David

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
news:eKSGzpI0DHA.3220@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:

>
> And Copyright Law limits computer program copyright owners, saying:
>
> 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 . . . .
>

None of this gives you the right to violate the license provided by
Microsoft to run their software.

--

David

Programmers write "Help Files" for a reason. use them.

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/