Word to the Third to the 5.1

[Scott Baret]

Here's one for the conquest books...

THREE brand new, sealed, shrinkwrapped, never-before-been-used copies of Word 5.1.

These three are getting installed on my Classics as soon as they come...finally, a powerful word processor that runs on these little guys!

The total cost, with shipping, was $45.

 

[Mike Richardson]

You should only open one copy and keep the other two sealed (I don't think Word 5.1 had serial codes). Later on down the road when you are no longer using the software you can sell those sealed copies for a pretty penny.

 

[Scott Baret]

Ah, but if I did that I would only be able to use it on one computer. I've seen shrinkwrapped Word 5.1s from time to time. They definitely don't have the scarcity of, say, Excel 1.0 (which I do keep shrinkwrapped...I'll never open that one).

If I come across another one I'll pick it up so I have one that I can leave shrinkwrapped.

 

[Mike Richardson]

Ah, but if I did that I would only be able to use it on one computer.

I disagree. Nothing says you must break the shrinkwrap on the other two boxes. All three boxes are identical - I don't believe Word 5.1 uses serial codes at all. You possess three legitimate boxes, and therefore have three licenses. You can't sell the shrinkwrapped boxes as long as you have Word 5.1 installed on three computers. In the future though, you could erase Word 5.1 from one of the computers and then sell one of the shrinkwrapped boxes. You are still upholding the basic ideal which you hold - one copy for each installation you have - you're just maintaining some value in those other two boxes.

This is how I was able to obtain about 8 copies of Microsoft Project 4.0 for Mac sealed and 2 copies of Microsoft Office 98 sealed. The company which previously had the software had only opened a few of the boxes. Project 4.0 had no serial codes so this worked fine, although Office 98 has serial codes and so they were using codes more than once, which was wrong.

Now, if Word 5.1 used serial codes, then yes, to remain legitimate, you would need to open all three boxes to obtain a unique code for each installation.

Anyway, it's just a recommendation.

I've seen shrinkwrapped Word 5.1s from time to time. They definitely don't have the scarcity of, say, Excel 1.0 (which I do keep shrinkwrapped...I'll never open that one).

They'll only increase in scarcity over time.

 

[Winterlast]

You are still upholding the basic ideal which you hold - one copy for each installation you have - you're just maintaining some value in those other two boxes.

To follow the absolute letter of the law, though: don't EULAs typically come into force only with the breaking of the seal rather than ownership of the sealed box?

 

[Scott Baret]

Word 5.1 does have serial numbers, they're just built in to the program itself. Most Microsoft programs from the late 1980s and early 1990s worked this way.

 

[Mike Richardson]

You are still upholding the basic ideal which you hold - one copy for each installation you have - you're just maintaining some value in those other two boxes.

To follow the absolute letter of the law, though: don't EULAs typically come into force only with the breaking of the seal rather than ownership of the sealed box?

If the qualification for enforcement is merely stated as "breaking of the seal" (where seal is the shrinkwrap), then you could tear off a tiny piece of the shrinkwrap on the bottom of the box and then argue that you have broken the seal.

It comes down to what Scott is trying to achieve - a general respect for copyrights, or a strict interpretation and self-enforcement of the EULA. The former I can understand and respect, the latter I find to be tedious and unrewarding.

 

[Mike Richardson]

Word 5.1 does have serial numbers, they're just built in to the program itself. Most Microsoft programs from the late 1980s and early 1990s worked this way.

Interesting. That means they had to manufacture each disk specially.

 

[Scott Baret]

Word 5.1 is actually an even more unique case. When you install Word 5.1 the installer asks for your name. It will then personalize the floppy disk with your name on it so that every time you re-install it will only have your name on there. That is, the program itself is already personalized with your name and the serial number whenever you install it.

 

[Mike Richardson]

Word 5.1 is actually an even more unique case. When you install Word 5.1 the installer asks for your name. It will then personalize the floppy disk with your name on it so that every time you re-install it will only have your name on there. That is, the program itself is already personalized with your name and the serial number whenever you install it.

That's a bitch. Oh well. I guess in this case it is proper to open all of the boxes.

 

[superpantoufle]

Word 5.1 is actually an even more unique case. When you install Word 5.1 the installer asks for your name. It will then personalize the floppy disk with your name on it so that every time you re-install it will only have your name on there. That is, the program itself is already personalized with your name and the serial number whenever you install it.

I think several Microsoft sowtware from that time workes that way. At least it was the case for Flight Simulator 4, that I received for Christmas when I was 13 or 14. I remember having to type my name and the #SN in order to install it on my parents' SE, and every subsequent installations had my name on them. Actually I long lost the original floppy, box and manual (what a shame!), but the copies of the application I still have lying on different machines still do have my name on them.

By the way, to you guys and Scott in particular, is it THAT important to strictly respect copyright on such old software? Clearly, those three sealed copies of Word have a greater value than opened. Wouldn't it be ok for you (though not strictly ok in terms of copyright law) to keep all three safely sealed, and use one of those copies from abandonware sites?

 

[Scott Baret]

The law is the law and must be obeyed. Perhaps someday the government will change the laws regarding the length of copyright on software (I believe there was even a petition for this linked to Low End Mac at one time) but for now we've got to abide by what we've got and if we don't like it, we're going to have to go and talk to our congressmen (or equivalent for those not from the US) about this to perhaps get something started.

Personally, I have no problem with the current system because someone wrote Word 5.1 (or any other software program) and deserves respect for what they've done. If they decide to make it free (like Cliff Johnson did with Fool's Errand) or write it as freeware/shareware in the first place, that's their choice. However, for those who haven't, it is only respectful to use it legally (not to mention it's the law). I don't care if many of you believe Microsoft/Adobe/anyone else is a huge company, there was still effort put into that program by someone at some point.

 

[Mike Richardson]

The law is the law and must be obeyed. Perhaps someday the government will change the laws regarding the length of copyright on software (I believe there was even a petition for this linked to Low End Mac at one time) but for now we've got to abide by what we've got and if we don't like it, we're going to have to go and talk to our congressmen (or equivalent for those not from the US) about this to perhaps get something started.
Personally, I have no problem with the current system because someone wrote Word 5.1 (or any other software program) and deserves respect for what they've done. If they decide to make it free (like Cliff Johnson did with Fool's Errand) or write it as freeware/shareware in the first place, that's their choice. However, for those who haven't, it is only respectful to use it legally (not to mention it's the law). I don't care if many of you believe Microsoft/Adobe/anyone else is a huge company, there was still effort put into that program by someone at some point.

I can respect your position. I think it's more important to respect the overall idea, rather than following EULAs to the letter.

For example, if I have a desktop and a laptop at home, and they are never used simultaneously, I should be able to install one copy of a program on both. Even if the EULA prohibits this, I'm still going to do it. I respected the copyrights in general by purchasing the software, but that particular EULA restriction is ridiculous.

Things would be different, for example, if I had two desktops in a business environment, where both desktops may and probably will be used simultaneously. Two licenses must be acquired for this scenario.

If I were in your position, I would probably open one copy of Word 5.1 and use the disks three times. I would erase one of the copies before selling one of the sealed boxes though.

 

[System7]

The law is the law and must be obeyed. Perhaps someday the government will change the laws regarding the length of copyright on software (I believe there was even a petition for this linked to Low End Mac at one time) but for now we've got to abide by what we've got and if we don't like it, we're going to have to go and talk to our congressmen (or equivalent for those not from the US) about this to perhaps get something started.

Ленин жило, жизни Ленина, Ленин будет жить!

 

[Temetka]

Ленин жило, жизни Ленина, Ленин будет жить!

Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live!

Lol.

Viva le revolucion, eh?

 

[superpantoufle]

Ленин жило, жизни Ленина, Ленин будет жить!

Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live!

Lol.

Viva le revolucion, eh?

You got it, guys!

Scott, you're 100% right, as you're stating facts. I sure do respect your position. And I sure don't fully endorse piracy. As of today, the Macs I use on a regular basis are all clean from pirated software. Now, my goal wasn't to start another of those ambiguous pro- or anti- piracy thread, like "piracy is always piracy" vs. "Yes, but I only rarely use that software, and Microsoft, Adobe et al. are rich companies!". I was just telling that if I were you, and speaking from an ethical point of view, I wouldn't care too much about legitimate copies of Word 5.1. But that's just me.

 

[Temetka]

I also meant to say:

Great score. I love finding boxed copies of old software. It always takes me on a trip down memory lane, and to be honest most of my fondest computing memories are from the late 80's to early 90's when everything was fresh and new for me. Now I'm old and jaded and kind of burnt out on computing. I love network design and security analysis though so still plenty of passion for that. Coding not so much. Oh and I love tweaking up *NIX boxen, especially if it's a true unix box such as my Ultra10 box.