MS says pirating is illegal, but are their PA rules illegal?

This is talking about making copies of the software installation media, not
day to day running of the software.


"PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWkvCLqWDHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the
following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

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

"(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"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to
say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

In article <eWkvCLqWDHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com says...

> Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the following is true:
> MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> MS Says:
>
> 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
>
> "(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"
>
>
> So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and Product Activation?
> And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
> As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy for home and private use"?
>
> I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.
>
>

The confusion exists because you, the licensee, are NOT the "Owner" of
the software. Microsoft is. You are only given a "license to use".
--
(I may be wrong...I usually am....)
Google is your Friend
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam:
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk

Microsoft hires a bevy of highly paid and highly skilled lawyers. You could
however take the EULA into a high price corporate law firm and see what they
have to say about it if you think you can make a case. Just remember to
bring your platinum card 8^)

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell\User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWkvCLqWDHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if the
following is true:
MS's product activation rules are illegal because:

The law says:
"Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of
the computer program should cease to be rightful.

MS Says:

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

"(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"


So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
Product Activation?
And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in to
say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
for home and private use"?

I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------

Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
use. Since the law says (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.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Larc" <larc_rnc@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:jn1tivccrqtkb36fn7rj34671nkbjv1m86@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:08:44 -0400, PCyr pondered exceedingly, then took

quill in

> hand and carefully composed...
>
> | Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if

the following is true:

> | MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
> |
> | The law says:
> | "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive

rights: Computer programs

> |
> | (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for
the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

> |
> | (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step

in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

> |
> | (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and

that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

> |
> | MS Says:
> |
> | 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

> |
> | "(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"

> |
> |
> | So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA,

and Product Activation?

>
> All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy of your XP install

CD.

> It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second computer.

Microsoft has

> never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the install copy of XP I

would

> use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in.

The

> original CD is stored for safekeeping.
>
> Larc
>
>
>
> §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
use. Since the law says (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.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"D.Currie" <dmbcurrie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OanxLVqWDHA.2476@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> What you've quoted discusses making a copy of the software, which has
> nothing to do with WPA. You make a copy of the CD, put it in your safe,

and

> that's that. Activation doesn't come into play when you're making a copy

of

> the disk.
>
> Or is there some other point here that I've missed?
>
>
> "PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eWkvCLqWDHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if

the

> following is true:
> MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
> rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement

for

> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making

of

> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
> the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
> that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and

that

> all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession

of

> the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> MS Says:
>
> 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
>
> "(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"
>
>
> So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
> Product Activation?
> And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
> As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in

to

> say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
> for home and private use"?
>
> I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.
>
> --
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
> self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
>
>

Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
use. Since the law says (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.

--
Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Robert Moir" <bofh@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:Og81TZqWDHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> This is talking about making copies of the software installation media,

not

> day to day running of the software.
>
>
> "PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eWkvCLqWDHA.1912@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm if

the

> following is true:
> MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive
> rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement

for

> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making

of

> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
> the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
> that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and

that

> all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession

of

> the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> MS Says:
>
> 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
>
> "(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"
>
>
> So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA, and
> Product Activation?
> And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you activate?
> As well, provided this is true, how come the government hasn't stepped in

to

> say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent users from installing an additional copy
> for home and private use"?
>
> I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty convincing to me.
>
> --
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
> self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
>
>

"PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJsC%23$rWDHA.3268@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
> use. Since the law says (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.
>

PCyr,

If you are in any doubt about the legality and enforcement of the EULA or
the use of any terms there in. I suggest rather then us all going around in
circles you do one of 2 things.

1. Take professional qualified legal advice
2. Contact Microsoft Legal and Corporate Affairs at the Head Office address
and ask your questions of them.

Advice sort in a peer to peer technical support forum will not be of sound
legal standing unless given by either a properly qualified individual or a
member of Microsoft LCA.

Also it was not necessary to cross post to so many unrelated forums.
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"PCyr" <heywood_jabloeme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJsC%23$rWDHA.3268@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> Sorry, I was talking about installing an additional copy for private home
> use. Since the law says (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.
>
> --
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Dream is a
> self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
> "Larc" <larc_rnc@warmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jn1tivccrqtkb36fn7rj34671nkbjv1m86@4ax.com...

> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:08:44 -0400, PCyr pondered exceedingly, then took

> quill in

> > hand and carefully composed...
> >
> > | Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want to confirm

if

> the following is true:

> > | MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
> > |
> > | The law says:
> > | "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive

> rights: Computer programs

> > |
> > | (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -

> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement

for

> the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making

of

> another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

> > |
> > | (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential

step

> in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine

and

> that it is used in no other manner, or

> > |
> > | (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only

and

> that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

> > |
> > | MS Says:
> > |
> > | 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

> > |
> > | "(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"

> > |
> > |
> > | So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to enforce the EULA,

> and Product Activation?

> >
> > All this says is that it's legal for you to make a copy of your XP

install

> CD.

> > It doesn't say anything about installing XP on a second computer.

> Microsoft has

> > never said it's not OK to copy the CD. In fact, the install copy of XP

I

> would

> > use if I needed to re-install is one I burned with SP1 slipstreamed in.

> The

> > original CD is stored for safekeeping.
> >
> > Larc
> >
> >
> >
> > §§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§

>
>

MS makes it quite clear that pirating their software is
not in any way at all legal. When you buy a copy of
Windows, you buy one licence for one computer.

you may make backups of Windows all you want for all they
care, but you may only have as many copies of Windows
runing as you licences.

(And yes, I realize you want to install it again on a
private home computer, you don't have to say it again for
the fifth time.)

>-----Original Message-----
>Basically, I've heard both sides of the story, but I want

to confirm if the following is true:

>MS's product activation rules are illegal because:
>
> The law says:
> "Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations

on exclusive rights: Computer programs

>
>(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of

Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it
is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a
computer program to make or authorize the making of
another copy or adaptation of that computer program
provided:

>
>(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an

essential step in the utilization of the computer program
in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no
other manner, or

>
>(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival

purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed
in the event that continued possession of the computer
program should cease to be rightful.

>
> MS Says:
>
>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

>
>"(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"

>
>
>So if this is true, how is MS *legally* allowed to

enforce the EULA, and Product Activation?

>And if it is, could MS be sued if they won't let you

activate?

>As well, provided this is true, how come the government

hasn't stepped in to say, "Sorry MS, you can't prevent
users from installing an additional copy for home and
private use"?

>
>I'm not taking sides, but I will admit, this is pretty

convincing to me.

>
>--
>Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X.

Dream is a self-righteous, ruthless net-cop too!)

>
>Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
>Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
>Change the obvious to the obvious.
>------------------