I was wondering... if you install windows XP pro on 2 different computers will microsoft find out and make the cd key not valid anymore?
thanks
thanks
Installing Windows XP pro with the same cd key on two different computers
- Thread starter imported_SOB
- Start date
jadinolf
Lifer
- Oct 12, 1999
- 20,952
- 3
- 81
We don't really condone that sort of thing on this forum or provide assistance for those that do. There are a lot of professionals that come here including employees of Microsoft. Don't get off on the wrong foot with your first post m'kay?
Welcome to Anandtech.
Originally posted by: Ichinisan
It should work fine. If you activate too many times, you might need to call Microsoft. Just tell them that you switched computers.
If you use both computers simultaneously, it's technically stealing. Don't do it
No, there's no "technically" about it, it is stealing. Unless you are the admin for a large business that has purchased a VLK from Microsoft, you're only purchasing one key to be used on one computer.
Originally posted by: Praetor
Originally posted by: Ichinisan
It should work fine. If you activate too many times, you might need to call Microsoft. Just tell them that you switched computers.
If you use both computers simultaneously, it's technically stealing. Don't do it
No, there's no "technically" about it, it is stealing. Unless you are the admin for a large business that has purchased a VLK from Microsoft, you're only purchasing one key to be used on one computer.
And I'm sure that we all drive the speed limit too.................yeah right. :roll:
Ichinisan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
If you are not using two copies simulataneously, then two installations cannot be considered stealing in the moral sense.
So shut the hell up, you stiff.
By the way, EULA's do not hold up in court. When I buy software, it's mine. I did not sign a contract *before purchase* that defines how I'm allowed to use it.
So shut the hell up, you stiff.
By the way, EULA's do not hold up in court. When I buy software, it's mine. I did not sign a contract *before purchase* that defines how I'm allowed to use it.
Originally posted by: Ichinisan
If you are not using two copies simulataneously, then two installations cannot be considered stealing in the moral sense.
So shut the hell up, you I astiff.
By the way, EULA's do not hold up in court. When I buy software, it's mine. I did not sign a contract *before purchase* that defines how I'm allowed to use it.
They're fairly untested in court. Copyright isn't something I'd like to try and fight though.
You don't own it, you own a license to use it.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
That has nothing to do with copyright law. Contract law has been pretty well-defined for years. A EULA is not a contract.
Yes, and there is no legal basis for the enforcement of additional restrictive terms after-the-fact, after one purchases a legal license to own a copy of a copyrighted work.
If MS or any other company wanted to present legally-enforcable, contract terms for use of their software, then they should force customers to sign a legal contract at the point of sale. Period.
If I've paid for it, in good faith, and recieved the goods, then from that point on MS has no further say.
It's a copyright license, hence my comments about copyright.
BS. They have every right to put restrictions on how anyone uses their software. Without that license, you have absolutely no rights to anything.
We could do away with copyright, but I think it might piss the government (disney, Sony, etc) off. Not to mention FOSS developers, authors, artists, etc.
Ichinisan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
Copyright laws also protect consumers and fair-use rights. Microsoft's "licensing" program means nothing to me if I exchanged cash for a product at a store and did not sign a contract.
Presenting a consumer such as myself with a contract after I have already paid cash for the product is not an ethical/legal practice. However, it is allowed because it deters rampant piracy (at the very least). Who really feels like giving Microsoft and the rest of the software industry such hell about trying to protect their product? I don't mind EULA's, but I certainly don't feel the least bit restricted by them.
Presenting a consumer such as myself with a contract after I have already paid cash for the product is not an ethical/legal practice. However, it is allowed because it deters rampant piracy (at the very least). Who really feels like giving Microsoft and the rest of the software industry such hell about trying to protect their product? I don't mind EULA's, but I certainly don't feel the least bit restricted by them.
The EULAs are available online, so you can see them before purchasing the product.
I try to respect the rights of a copyright holder, and choose consumer friendly software at the same time. It isn't hard to do and stay within the law.
Ichinisan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
I can choose to ignore the content of that "agreement" on the basis that it holds absolutely no legal bearing. Being free to do what I want with my property means that I can modify the software, or click wherever-the-hell I want to without restriction. Even if it means "lying" to the application, I'm free to do it...so I will. The only exception would be if I signed a legal binding contract before giving up the cash.
I agree 100% with Ichi... No such thing as a "contract after the fact". Sorry. The fact that our wonderful gov'ts seem to be going along with "shrink-wrap" contracts, doesn't mean it's right - ever heard of "bad precedent" - and you don't have to wait for them to make it right... In fact, if you refuse to go along with their stupidity, it may take them less time to fix their messes. After all, it only took what, 20 years, to get rid of the 55mph national speed limit (a typical gov't solution to a largely gov't caused problem) - which we would probably still have if most folks hadn't ignored it (actually some states still have this phony law because their people must be too timid/worn down to rebel against it). Cyber/Internet time doesn't have 20 years to wait!
. That's why individuals who can actually think logically for themselves are so dangerous - and why the gov't juvenile detention centers (aka "Public Schools") are working so hard to eradicate that ability.
. When's the last time our various gov'ts ever did anything better than a randomly-selected group of folks from the phone book could do?
. M$'s EULA doesn't hold up in court - just ask "9 Software" et al... As long as you don't try to sell or broadcast multiple duplicates to others (a true copyright violation), you can do what you want with it! You just need to know what your rights are and be willing to back them up in court if needed.
. Unfortunately, you can't register duplicate copies of XP - so the unregistered one will die after X number of uses or days - whatever it is.. That's why I won't use or recommend XP. Win 2k is the last version of Windwoes I'll ever buy!
. If you want, I'll be glad to tell you where to get legal copies of Win 2k cheap But it's not hard to find on your own - just use pricegrabber. Or you can just switch to Linux and forget about M$ and their phony EULAs forever!
.bh.
:sun:
. That's why individuals who can actually think logically for themselves are so dangerous - and why the gov't juvenile detention centers (aka "Public Schools") are working so hard to eradicate that ability.
. When's the last time our various gov'ts ever did anything better than a randomly-selected group of folks from the phone book could do?
. M$'s EULA doesn't hold up in court - just ask "9 Software" et al... As long as you don't try to sell or broadcast multiple duplicates to others (a true copyright violation), you can do what you want with it! You just need to know what your rights are and be willing to back them up in court if needed.
. Unfortunately, you can't register duplicate copies of XP - so the unregistered one will die after X number of uses or days - whatever it is.. That's why I won't use or recommend XP. Win 2k is the last version of Windwoes I'll ever buy!
. If you want, I'll be glad to tell you where to get legal copies of Win 2k cheap But it's not hard to find on your own - just use pricegrabber. Or you can just switch to Linux and forget about M$ and their phony EULAs forever!
.bh.
:sun:
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
A copyright license gives you the right to own a tangible, fixed copy of a copyright-protected work. Otherwise, you are in violation of copyright law.
Copyright law does not regulate use.
They have the right to place restrictions on how people use their software - but they have to implement those restrictions within a legal framework. Like I stated, let them force customers to sign a legal contract before the purchase. Then they would have a legal breach-of-contract claim against the end-user/licensor should they violate the terms of that contract.
However, an after-the-purchase-fact EULA, is most certainly NOT a legally-binding contract.
Trying to affix claims such as "opening this software envelope, is acknowledgement of these terms", is not legally sufficient, because the user already, in good faith, exchanged money for the goods, the goods in question being a license for ownership of a copyrighted work, and computer-readable media containing that copyrighted work.
Where in the world does anyone equate the protection under copyright law, with the restrictions of end-user rights in a EULA? They are totally unrelated, and if all EULAs disappeared tomorrow, "piracy" still wouldn't be legal, because of copyright law.
I'm really and honestly truely amazed that so many otherwise in-the-know people seem to have problems understanding these issues. If you don't understand your rights, then how can you fight for their continued existance? EULAs do not in any way prevent piracy, they have no force of law, their only purpose is to attempt to take further rights away from the customers. Personally, I piss on EULAs.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
That's nice, but you don't own any software... neither Microsoft nor most other vendors ever SELL their Software... what they sell you is only a LICENSE to use their software in accordance with their EULA. Legally, by installing the software you have agreed to EULA. So, since you don't own the software, you may NOT legally do whatever you want with it... you do however own the EULA, so if you want to put something in it and roll it all up and smoke it, feel free to do so.
Joe
BTW... has no one here ever had to reinstall XP? Every time I've ever done it, I've had to call MS and tell them what is going on in order to reactivate the OS.
Joe
Joe
You have chosen to accept the EULA several times. You did so when you opened the package (read the outside). You chose to accept it when you installed the software (with the F8 key - or through an OEM preinstall EULA acceptance screen). If you want you can find a great number of ways to bypass this acceptace but you'll land yourself in trouble with the DMCA.
Having already paid your money if you decide the EULA isn't acceptable you are welcome to return it to your place of purchase for a full refund. Microsoft has taken legal steps to ensure you will get your refund otherwise (as you have babbled about) they couldn't enforce the EULA.
You are purchasing a license to use someone else intellectual property. You aren't purchasing a candy bar.
You can get up on your soapbox, use M$ or Windoze instead of MS and Windows and generally rant to your hearts content. All it accomplishes is to make you look like a bitter, MS hating fool. Go pirate software and land yourself in court. You'll find out just how stupid you really are.
Call this number 202-872-5500 and they'll explain further.
I'm not going to argue about this further. If you get tied up in a discussion with idiots for too long outside observers lose track of who is who. The mods should have locked this thead after SOBs first post.
By reading this message you signify your agreement to pay me $100,000 to read it, and $100,000 per second whenever you think about what I've said.
Is that a legal contract?
If so, I will "personal mail" you via Anandtech about how to pay. Thank you for your cooperation. If you don't go along, you are a thief according to a commonly made assertion. In case it's signifcant I guarantee you that I need the money and I have put a lot of work into this message.
If it is not a legal contract, please explain to me how it is different than a EULA.
But, IAC, you cannot lawfully use copyrighted material without agreeing to the terms of the copyright, even if you don't sign a contract. If you don't signify to the terms, than you don't have a contract, and therefore can't use the copyrighted material. A lot more than this is enforceable under the DMCA.
True, most people don't sign any contract with special terms when they buy a book or recording, but that only means they are permitted to use the copyrighted material under the "default" terms of the law. For software, the default is whatever the EULA is, I believe. That's why they have a EULA, and put every provision in it the lawyers can think up. You don't have to sign the EULA, but if you do, then it is more straightforward to get a judgement against you in court (because the burden of proof is different), especially those countless dubious conditions they toss into it. They go on for pages. But if you dp go to court, whether you are right or whether you are wrong, you will certainly have to pay a fortune to defend against any corporation, and it'll be maximally worse against something the size of MS. You will be minus a lot of money, because, in general, lawyer fees are not recoverable, even if you prevail, although court costs (which are not the same thing) are.
But MS is not prosecuting individual end users, to my knowledge. Big Bill is liberal (in the old-fashioned sense) on this, it seems. Whether for personal scruples, or the practicalities of enforcement, Bill has always leaned on anti-piracy propaganda, and not the cops. (Recall that Gates drives his fast cars on the public thoroughfares as fast as they will go. He's been caught frequently.)
OTOH there are plenty of stories about MS going after any kind of COMMERCIAL operation.
Is copying stealing? No. It is not theft any more than repeating a joke you heard is, or than taking a picture of some one else's car. If you took someone's CD of XP, that would be stealing, because the person wouldn't have the CD to use any more. If you made a copy of the CD, you would be copying it, not stealing it.
Copyright law is in a totally different realm than laws about theft. The only reason a copyright even exists is by a law. Copyright is a government enforced monopoly: the exclusive right to copy. Government specifies the terms. It might be 100 years, or 30 seconds, or it may not be copyrightable. A lot of old things are not now copyrighted only because the law did not include it then, although it does now. Some things would still be under copyright today if present law were applicable then. By the US Constitution, copyrights (and patents) cannot last forever, although in a practical sense the government has negated that provision, as they have negated many other important limitations. The eventuality that a work pass into the public domain is as important to the stated premise (that it accelerates progress), as is the monopoly period. Of the two aspects, the public domain is the overwhelmingly more significant to progress.
As opposed to copyright, ownership and property exist independently of any government. It is of a standard that precedes and supercedes any government. It exists whether government acknowledges it or denies it. For those that believe in such things, God has pronounced his judgement in the commandment "Thou shall not steal." It is exactly because of its ultimate nature -above government- that lawyers and self-serving copyright holders appeal to the commandment, though they might be atheists. It is the reason they invented a terminology for things which are not property at all: "intellectual property," which makes everything that is not property "intellectual property." And why they appeal to the figurative use of the word "stealing" when referring to copying.
Copyright has no moral standing at all. In the 1800s, when practically everyone, including scientists, believed every word of the Bible was literally true, when educated people could commonly quote most parts of ithe Bible just given the chapter and verse numbers; and when every person of good standing considered it reprehensible to exhibit publicly any moral fault, and would themselves persecute anyone that did, authors had a terrible time persuading unauthorized publishers to refrain from putting out copies of their popular works. That was because no one, not the publishers, not the sellers, and not the buyers, saw anything wrong with copying. Copyrights back then were a high-handed government interference akin to income tax and paper money not redeemable in gold, to be tolerated only insofar as you couldn't get around it.
It is appropriate that in the later 1900s, and now the 2000s, with a population meandering adrift in moral indeterminism, what once was the empty bombast of tricky lawyers has come to seem persuasive.
Is that a legal contract?
If so, I will "personal mail" you via Anandtech about how to pay. Thank you for your cooperation. If you don't go along, you are a thief according to a commonly made assertion. In case it's signifcant I guarantee you that I need the money and I have put a lot of work into this message.
If it is not a legal contract, please explain to me how it is different than a EULA.
But, IAC, you cannot lawfully use copyrighted material without agreeing to the terms of the copyright, even if you don't sign a contract. If you don't signify to the terms, than you don't have a contract, and therefore can't use the copyrighted material. A lot more than this is enforceable under the DMCA.
True, most people don't sign any contract with special terms when they buy a book or recording, but that only means they are permitted to use the copyrighted material under the "default" terms of the law. For software, the default is whatever the EULA is, I believe. That's why they have a EULA, and put every provision in it the lawyers can think up. You don't have to sign the EULA, but if you do, then it is more straightforward to get a judgement against you in court (because the burden of proof is different), especially those countless dubious conditions they toss into it. They go on for pages. But if you dp go to court, whether you are right or whether you are wrong, you will certainly have to pay a fortune to defend against any corporation, and it'll be maximally worse against something the size of MS. You will be minus a lot of money, because, in general, lawyer fees are not recoverable, even if you prevail, although court costs (which are not the same thing) are.
But MS is not prosecuting individual end users, to my knowledge. Big Bill is liberal (in the old-fashioned sense) on this, it seems. Whether for personal scruples, or the practicalities of enforcement, Bill has always leaned on anti-piracy propaganda, and not the cops. (Recall that Gates drives his fast cars on the public thoroughfares as fast as they will go. He's been caught frequently.)
OTOH there are plenty of stories about MS going after any kind of COMMERCIAL operation.
Is copying stealing? No. It is not theft any more than repeating a joke you heard is, or than taking a picture of some one else's car. If you took someone's CD of XP, that would be stealing, because the person wouldn't have the CD to use any more. If you made a copy of the CD, you would be copying it, not stealing it.
Copyright law is in a totally different realm than laws about theft. The only reason a copyright even exists is by a law. Copyright is a government enforced monopoly: the exclusive right to copy. Government specifies the terms. It might be 100 years, or 30 seconds, or it may not be copyrightable. A lot of old things are not now copyrighted only because the law did not include it then, although it does now. Some things would still be under copyright today if present law were applicable then. By the US Constitution, copyrights (and patents) cannot last forever, although in a practical sense the government has negated that provision, as they have negated many other important limitations. The eventuality that a work pass into the public domain is as important to the stated premise (that it accelerates progress), as is the monopoly period. Of the two aspects, the public domain is the overwhelmingly more significant to progress.
As opposed to copyright, ownership and property exist independently of any government. It is of a standard that precedes and supercedes any government. It exists whether government acknowledges it or denies it. For those that believe in such things, God has pronounced his judgement in the commandment "Thou shall not steal." It is exactly because of its ultimate nature -above government- that lawyers and self-serving copyright holders appeal to the commandment, though they might be atheists. It is the reason they invented a terminology for things which are not property at all: "intellectual property," which makes everything that is not property "intellectual property." And why they appeal to the figurative use of the word "stealing" when referring to copying.
Copyright has no moral standing at all. In the 1800s, when practically everyone, including scientists, believed every word of the Bible was literally true, when educated people could commonly quote most parts of ithe Bible just given the chapter and verse numbers; and when every person of good standing considered it reprehensible to exhibit publicly any moral fault, and would themselves persecute anyone that did, authors had a terrible time persuading unauthorized publishers to refrain from putting out copies of their popular works. That was because no one, not the publishers, not the sellers, and not the buyers, saw anything wrong with copying. Copyrights back then were a high-handed government interference akin to income tax and paper money not redeemable in gold, to be tolerated only insofar as you couldn't get around it.
It is appropriate that in the later 1900s, and now the 2000s, with a population meandering adrift in moral indeterminism, what once was the empty bombast of tricky lawyers has come to seem persuasive.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter