Microscum Community

|

Kurttrail.com

Microscum
 
 
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?"

 

© 2005 Microscum Corp. All rights reserved. This is a Parody!