Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
BTW.. your license on your Windows 95 software was given to be used on one machine, and one machine only.
|
well none of my machines are running windows 95 as i have already said
the machine was running windows 95
my dad was going to upgrade to windows ME i told him to upgrade to windows nt 4.0 because it was more stable.
we threw out the windows 95 disk afterward since we did not plan in going back
and yes i did not plan on installing it on any other machine
Quote:
|
Did you contact Microsoft when you received your bootleg copy to let them know that you were removing the license from your previous machine and using it on a new one?
|
same machine just going thru an upgrade path
Quote:
|
Have you loaded the original disk or the bootleg disk onto any other machine ever?
|
nope like i have said multiple times i threw out the cd because i was not going backwards.
Quote:
|
Did you have your original Win95 documentation that carried the certification by Microsoft which also had the original serial number or did you utilize the crack software?
|
well since i only used it to upgrade to windows xp i never reinstalled the software. have you never upgraded a pc/ms office. if you don't have a valid software installed it just ask you to put the media in. lo request for liciening key.
I however did have the key because i rip off the back page of all the manuals and just put them in a binder so i never have to worry about.
I think i still have the licience key from frontpage 1.1 in that binder.
Quote:
|
If you were missing your serial number, did you contact Microsoft to receive your originally registered serial number and thereby have them laugh at you because they didn't support the software any longer??? At that point, did you notify the legal system that you were willfully going to violate the still valid copyright in effect for Win95 because Microsoft would not support it properly?
|
didn't have to since it was used for the upgrade only, but didn't need to because i kept the only important part the licience.
See this is the problem with your arguement you assume that all sharing is a wilful infringement
when the act it self says "" For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."