[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]

...

On Tuesday 07 May 2002 11:54 pm, Frank Shute wrote: [snip]

...

Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use.

I thought that was still breaking copyright?

Yes in both cases.

I think most of us would consider it 'fair use' if we copy tracks froma CD onto an MP3 player for convenience, or if we make a backup of a CD in case the original gets damaged. i.e. for personal use. But a single person can't listen to two CDs at once. [yes I know someone will refute this but I don't want to get silly about it.]

Logical definitions of "fair use" would cover backup copies and "space shifting" (transfering to a different media). Especially since in theory you have a licence to the use of the content. Of course this would mean that you should be able to exchange damaged, worn or simply obsolete media for new media at nominal cost. Whereas publishing companies would prefer to sell you new media and a new licence.

If you let someone else listen to your copy you have technically broken the law. If you put a copy of windows onto two machines you have broken the law. You are giving someone the opportunity to use software on the other machine.

You have technically broken the law simply by making the extra copy, unless the licence says you can do this, even if it is virtually impossible for anyone else to use it. Also the law deliberatly makes no distinction between making copies and copies (including highly ephemeral "copies") as part of a process of using. Thus under UK law you need a licence to run sofware. Strictly you also need a licence (most people would need a "two eye" version) to read a book. The latter would be laughed out of any court in the land, the former could (and has been) surrounded with enough technobabble to be considered as having merit.

HOWEVER: At one point Microsoft said they were relatively happy for a copy of office to be on a desktop and a laptop - because a business user would be using one or the other but not both at the same time; and if someone else was using the laptop meanwhile, the deal was off. But their Licences don't say that. This is water which Microsoft want to be muddy.

If these entities are subject to contract law then Microsoft saying you can do something sounds very much like they ammended the contract.

Regarding preinstalled windows - it would be illegal to sell the machine on and sell the copy of windows to someone else separately. Microsoft will claim it's illegal even if the HD is reformatted before the machine is sold.

Microsoft want people to *think* this would be illegal. AFAIK the only place they have tried to press the issue is in Germany, where they *lost*.

I doubt it. It would be illegal to buy a windows upgrade and sell the original CD to someone - the upgrade is tied to the original. Contract law. I think.

In "Microsoftland" maybe, in Europe and North America something called the "Doctorine of First Sale" applies. Once you sell something to someone they can do whatever they like, so long as there is no law against it.