| |
MS Product Activation: Frequently Asked
Questions

Multiple Activations
What is Product Activation?
MS Product Activation is an anti-consumer technology designed
to dupe unsuspecting customers into buying more retail copies
of MS software than they may legally need.
Which customers will be required to activate?
All of MS's customers who have to pay the highest monopoly-protected
prices for MS software: small businesses, and individual consumers.
Is it possible to get MS to activate your
PA-disabled software on more than one computer that you own?
It is possible, but you have to know how to protect your rights
to your software, though MS has set up Product Activation so
that it makes it harder for you to exercise your rights to the
software you've purchased. The easiest way would be to create
your second installation 120 days after you last activated your
first installation of Windows XP, as MS purges your PA (Product
Activation) data after 120 days, so activation of your second
installation should go through smoothly over the internet.
If you can't wait 120 days, then the next easiest way is to
do phone activation of your second installation. When you talk
to the PA phone rep, say you want to activate your copy of XP.
If they try to ask you any questions before asking to exchange
activation codes, tell them that the answer would require you
to divulge what you deem to be personal information, and that
you are uncomfortable with that since giving out personal information
is not a requirement of activating Windows XP. And if they continue
to try to ask questions, ask to speak with a supervisor, because
you have called to activate your copy of XP, not to be interrogated.
More than likely the phone rep will then start the process of
activating XP, but if you do have to talk to a supervisor, don't
worry. Start off the conversation by saying how rude it is to
be interrogated by the PA phone rep when all you want to do
is activate the software you paid for. You will be activated.
MS won't deny an activation unless you tell them that XP is
installed on more than one computer, but they have no means
to verify this info, so they must rely on the end user (YOU)
volunteering that info, and MS has no right to compel you to
give that info. All that activation tells MS is that enough
of your computer components have changed, in the last 120 days
or less, to require phone activation. MS can not figure out
whether XP is really installed on another computer, or not,
thru PA, unless you actually tell the PA phone rep that XP is
installed on more than one computer.
What type of questions should I answer from the MS's Product
Activation phone reps?
"What is your 50 digit activation ID?" and nothing else. Don't
be rude, and wait for the phone rep to ask you some other question
first, before telling them how uncomfortable you are answering
any questions that would require you to give them what you consider
to be personal info. [Hell, sometimes they don't even bother
asking anything!] When you call up to activate, listen to the
recording, you will hear something like, no personal information
is required to activate. Remember those words, and use it against
them, at the appropriate moment.
*UPDATE* - MS's PA phone
reps have gotten a bit cagier in dealing with people who are
protecting there rights to their copy of software and their
rights to anonymity, and have been known to hang up on people.
This makes it really important to get the name of the PA phone
rep before anything else happens, then if you are hung-up on,
you need to explain this when you call back and that you want
to talk to a supervisor. Tell the supervisor the name
of the original rep that hung-up on you. Then if the supervisor
still tries to question you, quote to the supervisor MS's own
words, "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/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
Isn't it "illegal" to install the same
copy of software on more than one computer?
Not at all. There are no laws that prevent an individual
from installing software on more than one computer that they
own, and as a matter of fact, US Copyright law limits computer
program Copyright owners by saying, it is not infringement to
make additional copies or adaptations of computer programs.
Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS, and they have had
it in their OS EULAs since Windows 3.1, and have yet to try
to enforce by legal means, in a civil court, as they've been
too afraid that they would lose. The whole reason that
MS dreamed up PA is to trick the ignorant consumer that their
One Computer BS is actually legally enforceable, so that MS
can sucker that consumer out of more money, even though MS has
never proven that they are entitled to it. So you can
just be another MicroSucker and believe without any proof that
MS's One Computer BS is really enforceable in a court of law,
and see more of your money go to subsidizing the XBox & MSN,
or you can wait for some real honest proof, and protect your
rights & money from the chicanery of a greedy under-handed monopoly!
Why let MS be the Judge in your own home, when they are too
afraid to bring their One Computer EULA term before a *real*
Judge? Until then, shouldn't you be the Judge in your
own home?
Aren't shrinkwrap licenses
legally enforceable?
Generally, the answer to
this is yes, but they can not be unreasonable, or violate
the law.
Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK
for the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
wrote:
"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms
are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in
general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive
law, or if they are unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html
How is MS's EULA unconscionable?
"This software is licensed not sold." This sentence
is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap license,
into a software license. Unfortunately with a copy
of retail software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to
prove it.
The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license,
just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner
of that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't
a licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner!
And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that
copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there
were at least 2 owners of that copy of software between
MS and the guy who is sold the software.
Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen
at least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of
software. Denying reality happened three times!
Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license
too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license
said that the TV was license not sold?! People own
every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal
precedent that says anything to the contrary! That
is the legal status quo at the present!
MS's post-sale EULA is not
a legitimate software usage license, that only confers limited
rights to use a copy of software, but is only a shrinkwrap
license on a retail copy of software, which is sold to the
new owner of that copy by the retailer. Congress put
certain limitations on the rights of copyright owners, in
other words, they gave owners of a copy the right to infringe
in certain circumstances. [And under certain circumstances
one does not even need to be an owner of a copy in order
to legally infringe, though none of those circumstances
are applicable to this discussion.]
What is a copy? "'Copies'
are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which
a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed,
and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid
of a machine or device. The term 'copies' includes
the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which
the work is first fixed." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
Owner of Copy and owner
of Copyright are two separate & distinct things under Title
17. Copies are material objects, or property, and
Copyright is not.
"Section 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. 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;
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." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html
Which brings us to Title
17 Chapter 1 Section 117, and MS's post-sale attempt to
rewrite it through a shrinkwrap license. The copy
of software is sold to you, thus you are the owner of a
copy, and Congress through Copyright law gave owners of
a copy of software the right to infringe.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
What law does MS's EULA
violate?
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.
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"
What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon
would even try to argue otherwise!
MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their
One Computer nonsense in the privacy of any individual's
home in a real court of law. Until there is some definitive
legal precedent that clears this all up, one way or another,
shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what they
can and can not do with the copy of retail software that
was legally SOLD to them by the previous owner of that software?!
Isn't the sole purpose
of Copyright law to protect Copyright owners rights, like
MS?
No.
As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote:
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly,
like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution,
reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest:
Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private
motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting
broad public availability of literature, music, and the
other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright
law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative
labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive,
to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public
good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court
has said, 'lie in the general benefits derived by the public
from the labors of authors' . . . . When technological change
has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright
Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
MS has
$49 billion in cash reserves as of July 2003!
In spite of fact that almost all of their non-software businesses
are losing money. On top of all the legal settlements
for Anti-trust abuse, and copyright & patent infringement!
Not to mention the losses due to the organized crime software
piracy rings operating in many Asian countries that have
weak or nearly non-existent copyright laws and/or enforcement.
Can anyone one argue, with a straight face, that MS hasn't
gotten a "fair return" for the creative labor of it's employees?
So is there any reasonable argument that MS's One Computer
EULA term in keeping with the 'primary object" of Copyright
which lies "in the general benefits derived by the public
from the labors of authors?"
Does MS's post-sale EULA make it illegal to install Windows
XP on more than one computer?
If you are talking about illegal under the law, then absolutely
not.
Illegal - against the law: forbidden by law
There is no US law that forbids the installing of software
on more than one computer.
Illegal! At most it's just a simple contract dispute. And
how would MS be able to logically sue someone, to enforce
the terms of the EULA, if that someone pays with cash and
never registers with MS? Remember, "Activation is completely
anonymous." MS can't even prove that someone even bought
XP, let alone whether they breeched the EULA! All I know
is, if I were offering consumers a real license for my copyrighted
material, I'd find out who the hell they were before they
got a hold of a copy, so I could both logically & legally
enforce my license terms by pursuing legal action, if that
ever became necessary.
MS's post-sale retail EULA's usage terms are nothing more
than a vapor-license. All words, and no substance. And Product
Activation is just some more smoke and mirrors to try to
magically fool people into thinking that the post-sale "vapor-license"
is a real binding contract. Vapor-contract-enforcement for
a "vapor-license."
Can
anyone say that "the Emperor has no clothes?"
|