Another thing that occurred to me, is what is the ‘computer’ from Microsoft’s point of view, I wonder. If I have XP on my laptop and many docking stations with wildly different hardware in each room of my home and office, do you suppose I will have to phone Microsoft for reactivation when I move my computer from the kitchen to the bedroom?
Also to my removable hard drive scenario you might want to assume that he unplugs his CPU and carries it along as well. Does that make it the same ‘computer’ now, I wonder.
To get back to the OP ever so briefly, there’s another problem besides the copy protection and MP3 controversy that has been the subject of recent debate. The use of XP boxes as hosts for DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks.
WinXP includes a fuller implementation of the raw sockets standard, and system-level commands for its use. It allows IP address spoofing.
It’s explained in detail here, and Microsoft’s response is here. I find Microsoft’s response less than reassuring.
Check out the whole grc.com site while you’re there. Some really good writing on the subject of network security.
I am VERY familiar with the term “fair use”. Your own cite confirms what I’ve been saying this whole time.
Examine, if you please:
When you install the Windows software on your computer, that is the one copy you are allowed to have. After installing, you now own two copies… the one on the CD, and the one on the computer, which is the one that is essential to utilization of the computer program.
No argument here. If you have Windows installed on more than one computer - as Homer says is rightful - then it is obviously NOT being used only for archival purposes.
No, you’re not a pirate, because you’re not using it on more than one system. To install it on a different machine, you call MS or get a new activation on the internet. It’s simple, but a hassle if you tinker with your computer a lot.
If Microsoft changes their EULA from “using one copy at a time” to “one installation instance at a time”, then you must agree to that to use their product, and breaching that would be breaking the law.
No computer is identical. They might have the same hardware specs, but each piece of hardware has a unique ID number, so this plan wouldn’t work.
You avoid the question, which was about whether it was a license violation. Do you know for certain that XP cares about hardware ID numbers (PCI device IDs, yes?)
Never mind, answer instead my ‘laptop variant question’, please.
I work for a company that sells satellite telephones (Iridium, Inmarsat, etc.) and since I’m the tech guy for the place its my job to tinker with all the new stuff before it gets shipped out to the customers (its not really as cool as it sounds). Iridium’s just come out with a data kit so you can surf the web at 10k for $1.49/min, one of the things that I noticed when I installed the software on the dog of a laptop I use for testing such things, is that when the machine boots up it shows the following prompt:
Please select configuration to load:
Original configuration
Iridium-Direct Internet
None
Hmmmm, I thought, wonder what XP’ll think of this, so I got on the phone to Iridium and asked them. Their response boiled down to: “We’ve no intention of making it work with XP.”
Now, this isn’t crappy tech-support talking. I’ve dealt with lots of tech-support people, both in the sat phone industry and the computer industry (I own a Compaq, I get to talk to their tech-support a lot. I hate them.), the Iridium folks are the best I’ve ever dealt with. If they say that they ain’t planning on bothering with making their software work with XP (and, trust me, their customers have lots of money to burn), I’m wondering how many other companies are going to tell Gates to shove XP up his card slot?
No, I don’t know for certain if XP cares about hardware ID numbers, this is just how I understand their latest incarnation of WPA. It supposedly locks itself to a system, and since a system is the combination of all the hardware, this is just what I’m assuming. I have not read any detailed articles on this particular concept.
I do not know myself how XP works with multiple laptop docking stations as I do not have a laptop of my own. However, from the beta testing newsgroups I check out, it apparently works fine (IIRC, XP sees the difference between laptop docking stations and PCMCIA cards and desktop hardware, but I might be mistaken).
::sigh:: Okay, I only have 40 minutes before I need to hit the sack, so this may be quick.
Sorry, Mort, you confused me when you said “I ask that you please purchase a copy for each installation that you use. What is wrong with that?” I apologize for the harsh tone of my letter, but I have been seemingly purposefully misunderstood many times in this thread (not necessarily by you) so I was quick on the offense.
Sam Stone: I don’t have the time to deal with your argument currently. I will attempt to get to it tomorrow or Thursday.
sailor: The government is of, for, and by the people. If the majority of the people do not agree with the law, the law is unsound and should be removed. The government exists to serve those who have established it, and people cannot be governed without their consent. It is nothing more than tyranny for a government to force a people to abide by laws with which they collectively do not agree. I ask again, what percentage of computer owners participate in casual piracy of the type that I have enspoused in this thread? If a majority of computer owners participate, the law is unfair and not in the interests nor desire of the people and should be removed. If a large minority participate, it is then obvious that the law is in need of much further review. To unwillingly restrict a population’s actions with laws with which they do not agree is TYRANNY.
rjung: I agree with you in near totality. I do not know if that is a good thing for you, my friend.
Spoofe: It is obvious to me now that you are being willingly and purposefully obtuse in your arguments. You argue that multiple personal copies sans a profit-based agenda is wrong and should remain illegal, yet you ignore the OBVIOUS connection to the current ‘fair use’ laws in music. WTF is your problem?
IS MAKING TWO COPIES OF YOUR MUSIC MEDIA, ONE FOR HOME, AND ONE FOR THE CAR FAIR USE OR NOT? IS IT OR IS IT NOT? HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM SOFTWARE USAGE?!?!?!? JESUS FREAKING CHRIST! ANSWER THE QUESTION!
As to whether it is wrong, it IS NOT. This has been established BY THE ACTIONS OF THE PEOPLE of the United States of America, and reinforced by current “fair use” laws in place protecting the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS to use of their property vis a vis music media. I apologize if I used vis a vis wrong, but you understand me anyway. I hope. It is not WRONG, as established, it is merely illegal because it benefits businesses (namely, Microsoft) for the laws to be ordered in such a manner.
FURTHERMORE, the argument IS about whether the laws are incorrect, and has been for some time now. It IS NOT about the fact of the law, and HAS NOT BEEN for some time now.
Monster104:
We can ignore the second provision because of the “or” in place at the end of the first. The law states that “it is not an infrigement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make… another copy… of that computer program provided…” Notice it says OWNER, not licensee. NOT LICENSEE. You OWN the program for which you paid and the law recognizes this as fact, otherwise it would say “or licensee” or something similar. SECONDLY: “that such a… copy… is created in an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine…” Notice it says A machine, not “a single machine” or “a particular machine”. A machine. The phrasing leaves room for the use of multiple copies of the program THAT YOU OWN to be used with a machine that you own.
sailor again: It does NOT specify a single machine! It does not! It says you may make a copy to if it essential in it’s use with a machine. It IS essential to copy the program to use it with your multiple personal machines. It does not say a separate copy must be purchased for each machine. It is ambiguous to the point that it allows that you MAY make copies for multiple machines.
Monster again: It says if it is essential for it’s use on a machine. It IS essential to copy the program for use on a second personal machine. Furthermore, it has an ‘or’ clause which means that if the program is being used in accordance with the primary clause, the secondary may be disregarded without penalty. I would bet you money if you asked the drafter if he meant you could use it on your two personal machines, he’d look at you like you were crazy and say “It’s your property, why the fuck not?” before shaking his head and looking confused.
The DMCA is bullshit and was quickly pushed through Congress to make sure that cracking the encoding on DVDs was illegal.
Spoofe: You are ignoring the fact that it does NOT specify that the copy must be for the machine which the original is being used on, and you have also, I noticed, deleted the “or” clause from the end of clause #1 that allows the possibility of following either clause 1 OR clause 2. This is the type of Constitutional revisionism that is killing America.
Tuckerfan: I thought Iridium went bankrupt and their satillites are crashing into oceans worldwide?
Of course, I state that my argument is not about the law’s fact, but about the law’s truth, then argue the law’s fact with Monster. I should clarify, my argument with Spoofe is about the morality/ethicality of the law, and I am open to differing facets of such an argument with others.
Nope. What happened is they went into bankruptcy court and the judge sold their assets to a group of investors (some of them former execs at Iridium) for $25 million because the investors had managed to get the military to buy $72 million worth of airtime (seems the spies like their scrambled sat phones). So Iridium’s still up and going strong. (And Motorola is pissed!!!)
My dad has just reminded me that my copy of WinME which is being used on three machines in this household was received as a promotional gift from Microsoft for attending a WinME seminar before WinME was introduced to the public. It says on it, in bright shiny letters, “This is an UNLICENSED copy of Windows Millenium Edition and for promotional purposes only.”
Hey hey, Homer, calm down…I feel very similarly to you. I feel that if I purchase a copy of a computer program that I should be allowed to use it on my personal machines that I own. However, I am arguing that because the DMCA IS law that it is illegal, whether or not it is moral or not, to use multiple copies.
And note that I HAVE made copies of software, but totally legally. For example, I have copies of several games and applications so I don’t have to risk losing my copy if the original CD is rendered useless.
I’m not arguing the moral of the law, I’m trying to argue what the law means. For example, the use of “A machine” says, to me, “one machine”, as “a” implies a singular meaning. Might not be right, it’s just a difference of interpretation.
Dammit…I knew I would forget something. I should add that the law permits companies to set the terms of use for their intellectual properties, and most companies do so with EULA’s.
Take some Valium, pal, you’re about to burst a vein.
My question (which, apparently, got your dander up so much) was on whether or not your claim was, indeed, that it is against the law to install Windows on more than one computer, or if your claim was “I don’t care if it is or not”.
To answer your question: No, making two copies of your media for usage is against fair use. The law has been quoted above. I suggest you read it.
Now, calm the fuck down or take it to the Pit. Your choice, buckaroo.
Got any citings to back that up? 'Cuz the law was cited, above, and analysis provided. If you think the analysis is incorrect, please point towards which aspect you think is not accurate and I shall attempt to clarify.
I apologize if I gave the implication that I was claiming it to be “wrong”. I don’t care about what is “wrong”, as that is a moral system based primarily on opinion. I have merely maintained, since Post One, that it is “illegal”.
I disagree. You have long maintained that it is NOT “against the law”, and have only added vague hintings about “morality”. Again, if you want to discuss the wrongness/rightness of the law, start a new thread. I’ll be glad to see you in there… and you’d probably be surprised to see me agreeing with you.
Point out a single question of yours that I have “dodged” or apologize.
Congratulations. I haven’t the foggiest idea what impact this has, as I haven’t the foggiest idea what stipulations Microsoft has placed on the ownership of the product.
You’re the one who claimed to have read the license agreement. YOU tell ME what it says.
Don’t you have anything better to curse at each other for?
A few hints:[ul][li]The Ultimate Sportscar: Porsche vs. Ferrari;[/li][li]The Ultimate Beer: Westvleteren Abt vs. Guinness;[/li][li]Who’s hotter? Jennifer Lopez of that blonde-ish chick from Destiny’s Child?[/ul]THOSE are the issues men get into fights about. Not bloody software.[/li]
[sub]FYI: the correct answers are, respectively: Ferrari, Westvleteren Abt, and Jennifer Lopez. Anyone who disagrees can meet me in the Pit.[/sub]
I take it, then, that you are for the complete abolishment of the U.S. Constitution? Pure majority rule? That’s a pretty odd position for a Libertarian to take.
I hate them.), the Iridium folks are the best I’ve ever dealt with. If they say that they ain’t planning on bothering with making their software work with XP (and, trust me, their customers have lots of money to burn), I’m wondering how many other companies are going to tell Gates to shove XP up his card slot?
