All In one Windows Insatllation ISO

[Geek-9pm]

In no way does the EULA change the Copyright law and the extinctions of the Copyright law. The use of media is limited.  It does not matter what anybody here thinks. The law puts a limit on media. The EULA does not invalidate the law.

[BC_Programmer]

In no way does the EULA change the Copyright law and the extinctions of the Copyright law. The use of media is limited.  It does not matter what anybody here thinks. The law puts a limit on media. The EULA does not invalidate the law.

Are you talking about what you quoted from the DMCA, which has absolutely no information or restrictions regarding Media? Did you even read it?

[Geek-9pm]

Neither you or I are lawyers. Th quote I made was a short description. Anybody who wants to read the full text needs to look elsewhere.
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/youtube-restores-eviction-lawyer-protest-video-amid-dmca-takedown-flap/
http://www.dmca.com/

Of course it does not say "You can not make an ISO of different Windows OS."
It does not have to. The DMCA goes further than  just copyright.

Maybe this will help

Code: [Select]

While Always True.
 Do_ Say " The DMCA goes further than  just copyright."
 Declare  "The DMCA goes further than  just copyright."
 WriteLN  "The DMCA goes further than  just copyright."
Repeat forever.Can you understand that?

[camerongray]

So you are saying that a law can make something illegal without actually stating it? Nonsense...

The EULA is what Microsoft permits you to do with their software (as in make one backup copy of the media) - The DCMA does not state otherwise.  By your logic if free software had a EULA that stated "You can make as many copies of this software as you like", copying it would still be illegal because of the DCMA.

[Geek-9pm]

...
The EULA is what Microsoft permits you to do with their software (as in make one backup copy of the media) - The DCMA does not state otherwise.  By your logic if free software had a EULA that stated "You can make as many copies of this software as you like", copying it would still be illegal because of the DCMA.

Not my idea or logic. Read the law.

[BC_Programmer]

Not my idea or logic. Read the law.

your Claim is that the DMCA goes beyond copyright, despite the fact that it is a Copyright act. If you cannot point out the part of the law that actually supports your original claim, we are NOT in any position where we are required to support your argument by reading the law, especially when you yourself haven't read it- your excerpts are from wikipedia, and your links are just the links that you got from a Google search on "DMCA". Why should we be the ones to actually read the law text in question to support your claims, when your own posts show that your own research on this has been cursory at best? Even if it is supported by that text- the onus is on you to present why.

Your claim is that the DMCA overrides ANY agreement that could ever be made by a software publisher.

You back up this claim by telling us to "Read the law".

First, Which law? There are quite a few laws. Best guess is the DMCA in this case.

Second, given the length of the laws in question- You clearly are not basing your claim on any text within, because you didn't read them. So I fail to really understand why suddenly the onus is on us to either prove or disprove your claim by reading it ourselves. It's not. You've not even really provided any evidence for your claims. "read the law" isn't providing "evidence" any more than when the giant frog visited the thumb princess in 'War and Peace' tried to cinvince her that the King of the Potato People was planning an attack...- What? There was no giant frog or thumb princess in 'War and Peace'? That's not my idea, read the book! See? That's the same idea. If I wanted to substantiate the idea that there was a giant frog or a thumb princess, I would be able to do so by providing page numbers, excerpts, etc. Even if there WAS a giant frog and a thumb princess in the book, expecting somebody else to substantiate my claim by telling them to "read the book" outside of an environment where that would be expected is ridiculous.

[Salmon Trout]

when the giant frog visited the thumb princess

That sounds a bit racy. Steady on, BC!

[Geek-9pm]

Quote from BC

Your claim is that the DMCA overrides ANY agreement that could ever be made by a software publisher.

Not  so. If I gave that impression, I hereby deny that was my intent.  Please do notg put words in my mouth. What I meant was that he more recent law covers what some thought were 'loopholes'  in earlier copyright law.
Back to topic. The OP suggests making Mufti OS ISO. Then somebody said the backup provision would allow that. Wrong. Using the backup provision as a doorway to circumvent  copyright is contrary to law.
The more recent law makes it more difficult for the unscrupulous from commuting fraud, theft or deception along with copyright infringement.Yes, older laws already covered that, but there was a need to make some things clear because of the ease of making copies of copies in the digital age.
Of course, the law does not prevent areal user from making a reasonable backup of material he has license. It is contrary to law for him to make his backups available to others who may or may not have a license.

BTW:My reading skills are not the issue here. 

[camerongray]

The OP suggests making Mufti OS ISO. Then somebody said the backup provision would allow that. Wrong. Using the backup provision as a doorway to circumvent  copyright is contrary to law.

Again, Where does any law state this?  Give us actual evidence!

Creating a "Multi OS ISO" is not possible, however creating a flash drive that multiboots different Windows installers is totally possible and I cannot see how this violates any law or licence - It is no different to having a dual boot of different Windows versions installed on your Hard Drive! Please, actually cite a part of the law/licence that forbids this - Nothing states that the "backup copy" cannot be on the same medium as another OS.

[Geek-9pm]

Seev Reply #8
A backup is a  backup.
When you give it to somebody else that does not have a license it is not a backup for that individual. One can not trade, exchange, barter, sell  or otherwise distribute data as a backup. if there is a restriction on  the use of a backup. You only backup your  own software. You can not give your backup to somebody else a a excuse for infringement of the stated allowed use of the product.
Is that to hard to understand?