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

From: D.Currie (dmbcurrie_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/04/03

  • Next message: G.M.: "Re: Decrytping Files from past OS Install" 
    Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:27:24 -0600

    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.
------------------
  • Next message: G.M.: "Re: Decrytping Files from past OS Install"

    Relevant Pages
    • Quantcast