Repacking the Installed softwares

[harshadd]

Well, I've seen Licenses that said "This piece of software may only be used on the system you bought it with." Of course, that may be something you only see in some countries, I don't know. But you're right, quite often it does work like you wrote.

Greetings,
Nepomuk

win 2000 / 2003 standard has similar licensing policies, recently i seen it for office 2007 on MS site. I was trying to re-locate the link for confirmation but no luck as I am in office and limited access is given. Also I am working with ISO standard company and we follow the licensing rules as I mentioned above.

More about licensing:
Also suppose a person is having license for version n, of a software, he can install version n or n-x (a lower version), but not both.
This means
If I have Licensed copy of XP , I can use that license for installing Windows 98 even though I do not have license for windows 98, But then I can not install XP till I am using 98.
This is true for MS Office products too.

Fuhrer:
A person is allow to make a single duplicate copy (CD COPY) of his licensed software's CD for his own use in order to protect original media from physical damages.

[Nepomuk]

More about licensing:
Also suppose a person is having license for version n, of a software, he can install version n or n-x (a lower version), but not both.
This means
If I have Licensed copy of XP , I can use that license for installing Windows 98 even though I do not have license for windows 98, But then I can not install XP till I am using 98.
This is true for MS Office products too.

Are you sure about that? It would be new to me, especially as the keys do, if I remember correctly, have different formats.

Fuhrer:
A person is allow to make a single duplicate copy (CD COPY) of his licensed software's CD for his own use in order to protect original media from physical damages.

This is not completely correct in all countries. For example, here in Germany, one is allowed to have a single duplicate copy of a licensed CD, but you're not allowed to break any copy protection to create such a copy. The second law was created a few years ago, so it's fine to have old copies, for which you had to break copy protection then, but you're not allowed to create new duplicates.

These laws cause a lot of confusion and annoy many people, so they are some of the laws most commonly broken. But they're still the law.

Now, I don't know what the law says in other countries, but I could imagine that the situation may be similar.

In any case, to be sure about the legality of the OPs question, he/she will just have to check the licenses that came with the software, which should be repacked.

Greetings,
Nepomuk

[JamieHowarth0]

A legal precedent set by Thomas Slattery vs. Apple Corp. (I believe) states that an individual is allowed to reverse-engineer or forcefully break proprietary copy protection mechanisms to create the licensed backup copy in accordance with copyright law.

In the particular case concerned, Thomas Slattery broke through Apple's proprietary DRM mechanism so he could create backups of songs he had downloaded from iTunes.
It is to the best of my knowledge that a presiding judge ruled that Thomas Slattery was within his rights to break the DRM on the copyrighted material, as the law allowed him to make backups of the songs concerned and this law took precedent over Apple's proprietary mechanism to prevent copying of downloaded material.

I believe (but am not entirely sure) that this case has set a legal precedence regarding DRM, and is one of the key reasons that Apple has, to a certain extent, shelved it's DRM mechanism (it now prices DRM-free songs at the same price as Amazon's DRM-free downloads, 99c per song).

This article on WikiPedia details the ins and outs of Apple's FairPlay(tm) DRM mechanism and individuals concerned who tried to reverse-engineer the encryption used, as well as links for further reading.

In short, if the copyright holder of a licensed piece of software does not allow individuals to create backup copies it is a breach of international copyright law (most certainly in the US and UK).

In response to the OP's question though, you must check the license granted with pre-installed software. If it says that the software is only for use on the machine you bought the software with, then that's the licensing restriction which you must adhere to.
As an example, when Windows is pre-installed on a machine purchased from a PC retailer, the Windows OEM license is tied to the motherboard of the machine on which the OS is originally installed. Upgrade RAM, processor, hard disk, you're still within the terms of the license, but change the motherboard and you lose the license to use that particular installation copy of Windows.

codegecko

[harshadd]

Are you sure about that? It would be new to me, especially as the keys do, if I remember correctly, have different formats.

Yes License has nothing to do with keys actully. Product Keys means not the license. I remember we purchased 350 licenses for win98, But did not open all the CDs . We used to dump the I386 FOLDER ON HDD from 98 bootable CD, and install the os from there. Those days when 98 was latest OS Activation was not the part of Installation process. Now XP need activation witin 30 days from installation.
It is also true that If a user is having Vista license But want to use XP/Win98 because poor fellow not capable of fulfilling Higher Configuration requirements, Or technically not capable of understanding High level funda of new s/w. Or in simple words habitat of his old OS and do not want to shift. (But in market older version is not available for his new 2nd PC, and he wanted to have both PCs) He is granted rights to use older version of same s/w having license for latest version. Here again I want to repeat, Product kety is not the license. He will use his OLD product key only. and install his OLD s/w.
He has 1 license for 98/XP and second for VISTA so he will use Vista License (Not the product key) for XP / 98 offcourse 1 copy because having 1 license for Vista.
See supportings here.

[Nepomuk]

Wow, that's some pretty good information codegecko and harshadd! Thanks for enlightening me! :-)

Greetings,
Nepomuk

[JamieHowarth0]

You're welcome Nepomuk, it's a handy bit of info to know! :-)

Another nice little legal workaround I have discovered is as follows:

Ìt is legal for an individual to download a copy of any song from the Internet at no direct cost (cost of a Net connection is an indirect cost) providing they have already purchased a CD of the music. Purchasing a CD of music is merely purchasing the licensable right to privately listen to each song itself, and again, one is allowed to have a backup copy of the copyrighted material.

This has been a wonderful thing for me as I have downloaded all of my CD collection from the Net in MP3 format which is completely legal. I've even lost a couple of CDs which I have previously purchased, and under these laws I am allowed to download that same CD again and not be in breach of copyright laws.

codegecko

[harshadd]

This has been a wonderful thing for me as I have downloaded all of my CD collection from the Net in MP3 format which is completely legal. I've even lost a couple of CDs which I have previously purchased, and under these laws I am allowed to download that same CD again and not be in breach of copyright laws.

codegecko

Just some queries here
Suppose some one lost purchased CD. But while downloading how he/she can refer that he /she had purchased the CD. What makes you authenticate to actually download.
Secondly, If a site itself is charging for download how they will compromise with you for you had legally purchased the CD in past?
Or you mean to say site is providing songs for legal/Illegal download. But storing It with you is legal for you, as you had purchased it before?
If so what legal document you provide for the same if some one asked for it to you as a proof?

[jg007]

You're welcome Nepomuk, it's a handy bit of info to know! :-)

Another nice little legal workaround I have discovered is as follows:

Ìt is legal for an individual to download a copy of any song from the Internet at no direct cost (cost of a Net connection is an indirect cost) providing they have already purchased a CD of the music.
codegecko

NOT in every country!

[jg007]

See supportings here.

Please add the important parts if you quote!-

"Please note that one cannot "downgrade" to XP Pro if their license is for Vista Home or Vista Home Premium. "

unless you have vista ultimate you CANNOT downgrade, 'home' and 'home premium' do NOT grant downgrade rights

[JamieHowarth0]

Q:

what legal document you provide for the same if some one asked for it to you as a proof?

A: Proof of purchase (receipt).

codegecko