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.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.

Contracts must follow the law, not the other way around, David. MS
doesn't have the right to specify what computer I, an "owner of a copy
of a computer program," can put additional installations on.

--
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:
#vS4IS#zDHA.540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:


>> 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>."
>



Ok. Remove the sofware from the CD and show it me. Not a printout. Not
the program running on a computer. The actual software. Not a display of
the code on a screen. Show me what you "own". You can't. Because,
Software is Intellecual Properity. Intellecual Properity that Microsoft
owns.

> § 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.
>

Frist Admendment? The Right to Free Speech? Sorry, But, Directions to
commit a crime is not protected speech. And, despite your claim that
your site is a parody ( Protected Speech ), it clearly describes how to
circumvent the WPA ( Unprotected Speech ).


> 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
>

The Grad Student published a Research Paper, Exempt from the DMCA
Cluase, that stated that simply holding the Shift key whle loading the
CD would bypass the copy protection used on the CD. Hodling the Shift
key whle loading a CD is a standard Windows method to bypass Auto-play.

Though Sunncomm decline to state the reason for pukkng the suit. I'm
willing to bet it was because of the Research Aspect of the paper and (
most likely )the probable bad publicity they would recieve from such a
suit

>>
>> 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!
>



--

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.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?

"So here is your opinion:"

"'MS can put any restriction on their software that they damn well feel
like for any reason that they feel like.'"

"Back up *your* opinion with laws and/or court rulings, as I have backed
up my opinion, or admit you are just the fat, lazy, and illogical fool
that I already believe you to be. My guess is that you'll either run
away with your tail between your legs, because I have already shown who
really has the *power* under the Constitution, and it ain't Copyright
owners, or you'll just ramble on about me & my opinion, instead of
trying to back up why your opinion is legally valid." - from the thread
"MS Stole It's DRM From InterTrust" - http://snipurl.com/3m4n

I'm still waiting to see if you know what you're talking about, but you
ran away from your own words with your tail tucked up between your legs!
When you become a man that stands behind his own words, like I do with
mine, give me a call, but I won't be holding my breath, as I'm of the
opinion that you are nothing but an absolute fool, and are totally
incapable of being a real man.

--
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!"

David wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> news: #vS4IS#zDHA.540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
>
>>> 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>."
>>
>
>
>
> Ok. Remove the sofware from the CD and show it me. Not a printout. Not
> the program running on a computer. The actual software. Not a display
> of the code on a screen. Show me what you "own". You can't. Because,
> Software is Intellecual Properity. Intellecual Properity that
> Microsoft owns.

Moron, they own the copyright. If you delete the software from the CD,
where does it go? Nowhere, that's where. So-called "Intellectual
property" that isn't defined on some media, is nothing but an idea, that
you can't own the copyright to until you express it in some physical
media.

I never said I owned the software, just my COPY of it, as it was
expressed in the pysical media I legally purchased. And under copyright
law, as an "owner of a computer program," I can make additional copies
on unspecified computers.

>
>> § 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.
>>
>
> Frist Admendment? The Right to Free Speech? Sorry, But, Directions
> to commit a crime is not protected speech.

LOL! I posted to this group the secret formula for the A-Bomb a couple
of days ago, so go turn me in to Homeland Security! E=MC² Oops, I did
it again! ROFL!

> And, despite your claim
> that your site is a parody ( Protected Speech ), it clearly describes
> how to circumvent the WPA ( Unprotected Speech ).

No it doesn't. I'm not circulating any means to “circumvent a
technological measure.” I'm circulating truthful information, that only
decribes how MS's PA policies work. MS's PA policies aren't a
"technological measure that effectively controls access to a work."

>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> The Grad Student published a Research Paper, Exempt from the DMCA
> Cluase, that stated that simply holding the Shift key whle loading the
> CD would bypass the copy protection used on the CD. Hodling the Shift
> key whle loading a CD is a standard Windows method to bypass
> Auto-play.
>
> Though Sunncomm decline to state the reason for pukkng the suit. I'm
> willing to bet it was because of the Research Aspect of the paper and
> ( most likely )the probable bad publicity they would recieve from
> such a suit

Whatever. The fact remains that my FAQ is still standing, so I won't be
losing any sleep over MS trying to invoke the DMCA after all this time.
I believe that my 1st Amendment right to free speech protects me, and
I'll keep my FAQ on my web site to clearly demonstrate that I'm a man
that stands behind his words, despite the possible consequences.

--
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!"

Greg P

Kurttrail is what were saying is the truth,

Then on ebay the sellers would not have the following
statements

>>As per eBay and Microsoft rules and regulations this is being sold
>>with an appropriate piece of hardware.
>>The hardware will not have any warranty and will be of my choosing.

I talking about an oem version not a retail version.

Greg P Rozelle

Gary Tait

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:18:36 -0500, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:

>Who has to lie about the installation ID?

Those trying to activate XP on more than one computer, using the same
product key.

Gary Tait

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:12:44 -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!"
>
> 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:
>

Meaning you can duplicate the CD, or copy the contents of the CD to
another medium to make use of the contents.

>(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:

This is where you car mixing things up. Installing the contents of the
install CD is a different thing than simply copying it.

>
>(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.

Gary Tait

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:47:43 -0500, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:

>I never said I owned the software, just my COPY of it, as it was
>expressed in the pysical media I legally purchased. And under copyright
>law, as an "owner of a computer program," I can make additional copies
>on unspecified computers.

No, as an owner of the media, you don't own an unlimited use of the
software on the disc. You simply own a copy of the software. When you
purchased it, it came with a license, which in it's physical form is
the COA, which it's terms of use are spelled out in the EULA contract
you agree to when you install the software.

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 Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:12:44 -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!"
>>
>> 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:
>>
>
> Meaning you can duplicate the CD, or copy the contents of the CD to
> another medium to make use of the contents.

No, meaning what's I wrote below, along with MS's definitions of the
words that were change for clarity. Your meaning doesn't even mention
"a machine" which would be the computer not the CD.

>
>> (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:
>
> This is where you car mixing things up. Installing the contents of the
> install CD is a different thing than simply copying it.

Hence, the word adaptation. Look up it's meaning, or follow the effin'
links below to MS's own definition!

>
>>
>> (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.

Read and follow the links above. Maybe you'll learn something.

--
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 Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:47:43 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> I never said I owned the software, just my COPY of it, as it was
>> expressed in the pysical media I legally purchased. And under
>> copyright law, as an "owner of a computer program," I can make
>> additional copies on unspecified computers.
>
> No, as an owner of the media, you don't own an unlimited use of the
> software on the disc.

That's write, I have the use rights that are detailed under Title 17
Chapter 1 Section 117, not to mention my 'fair use' rights.

> You simply own a copy of the software. When you
> purchased it, it came with a license,

A shrinkwrap license, not a software license.

> which in it's physical form is
> the COA, which it's terms of use are spelled out in the EULA contract
> you agree to when you install the software.

Any contract can be legally broken, if the terms are unconscionable or
violate the law, like MS's EULA does, in my opinion. If MS doesn't like
my interpretation of their EULA they could always sue me to prove me
wrong, but until that happens, I have every legal right to interpret
MS's EULA any way I like.

I have to give you some credit for at least trying to research your
opinion, and attempting to back your opinion up with something more than
the hot air most others only use.

--
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 Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:18:36 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>> Who has to lie about the installation ID?
>
> Those trying to activate XP on more than one computer, using the same
> product key.

How? If they lie about what the installation ID is on the second
computer, then the answering code won't work. There is absolutely
nothing to lie about, as long as this quote, "the only information
required to activate is an installation ID (and, for Office XP and
Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the nameof the country in
which the product is being installed)", isn't a lie in the first place.

--
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 Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:23:45 -0500, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> 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!"
>
> Gary Tait wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:18:36 -0500, "kurttrail"
>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Who has to lie about the installation ID?
>>
>> Those trying to activate XP on more than one computer, using the same
>> product key.
>
>How? If they lie about what the installation ID is on the second
>computer, then the answering code won't work. There is absolutely
>nothing to lie about, as long as this quote, "the only information
>required to activate is an installation ID (and, for Office XP and
>Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the nameof the country in
>which the product is being installed)", isn't a lie in the first place.

But when MS asks why, (if there is trouble), you would have to give
them mis-truths.

Gary Tait

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:10:58 -0500, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote:

>> This is where you car mixing things up. Installing the contents of the
>> install CD is a different thing than simply copying it.
>
>Hence, the word adaptation. Look up it's meaning, or follow the effin'
>links below to MS's own definition!

Or your interpretation of the workd adaptation.

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 Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:10:58 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote:
>
>>> This is where you car mixing things up. Installing the contents of
>>> the install CD is a different thing than simply copying it.
>>
>> Hence, the word adaptation. Look up it's meaning, or follow the
>> effin' links below to MS's own definition!
>
> Or your interpretation of the workd adaptation.

Can you just copy & paste the software files off the CD onto a hard
drive, reboot, and then boot into Windows? Of course not. You have to
use the installation routine to modify the files on the CD to make them
suitable for their specific purpose, being an OS for a computer.

What does adaptation mean?

1. adapting: the process or state of changing to fit new circumstances
or conditions, or the resulting change

2. something adapted to fit need: something that has been modified for a
purpose

So, yes I agree that my use of the word "installation" is indeed my
interpretation of "adaptation," but it makes absolute logical sense to
me. If it doesn't make sense to you, then please show us what you think
the word adaptation means in relation to this law. Poo-pooing it as
just my "interpretation" is meaningless, unless you have some alternate
logical meaning for the word as it is used in this law.

--
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 Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:23:45 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> 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!"
>>
>> Gary Tait wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:18:36 -0500, "kurttrail"
>>> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who has to lie about the installation ID?
>>>
>>> Those trying to activate XP on more than one computer, using the
>>> same product key.
>>
>> How? If they lie about what the installation ID is on the second
>> computer, then the answering code won't work. There is absolutely
>> nothing to lie about, as long as this quote, "the only information
>> required to activate is an installation ID (and, for Office XP and
>> Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the nameof the country
>> in which the product is being installed)", isn't a lie in the first
>> place.
>
> But when MS asks why, (if there is trouble), you would have to give
> them mis-truths.

If MS is asking why, then they are requiring more information than their
stated policy says is required, therefore MS is the liar, not the End
User.

--
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!"