Am I infringing copyrights ?
 

I copied all the fonts (ttf, ttc) in C:\Windows\Fonts to my linux distro and Im using the MS fonts on Linux now.

I ran fc-cache, restart X.Im hooked.

Im using oringinal copy of Windows.

Nah, dunno, don't worry.

if you paid for xp, then the fonts belong to you (at least that set does) i assume...

Not even close, if you paid for XP then you hold a license to use those fonts, you don't own them or have any rights whatsoever.

Yes I think you're entitled to use them in any shape or form.

I don't think so man, this is MS remember. You are only renting the fonts. I don't think MS has ever allowed their customers to use any of their products "in any shape or form." Bad for business you know.

Still, I don't see a problem with using the fonts in Linux. As mentioned, StevenO has (presumably) a fully licensed copy of windows, so it is probably alright legally to use the fonts on his personal computer as long as they are not redistributed to a different computer, or to another person.

But of course, this is just common sense to me, which means MS most likely doesn't see it that way, and oh yeah, IANAL.

I do not know if this is relevant or not. One of the optional updates for my Novell Suse Linux 10 OS was the microsoft fonts. I did not choose to install them because I have a phobia that Microsoft infects all of its software. If Novell openly supplies these fonts they must be available to everyone.

"If Novell openly supplies these fonts they must be available to everyone."
Not necessarily. Novell might have a licensing deal with Microsoft to provide the fonts to its users/customers.

To answer the original question: you might be violating copyright. That's the honest truth: maybe. Here's the deal though, there is not an agency in the world with so much free time on its hands to go door-to-door and check every personal computer and verify fonts are being used within the stipulations of any particular EULA. It's just not an important issue. Fonts are "eye candy" in a sense; they do nothing. They are not promoted by Microsoft as a selling point for their product(s); in other words Microsoft cannot claim any loss of sales regarding Windows/Word because of rampant distribution of their fonts. Even if there is a provision against distributing them, there is little or no financial gain to be had by exploiting a breach of that license agreement. How much is someone going to pay to get a set of fonts available on the majority of personal computers?

The point is, there will be no enforcement unless there's economic incentive. Clearly, there is virtually no economic incentive here.

And if you're really concerned about copyright infringement, talk to an attorney. A court probably would not be persuaded with "I read it on LQ.org." ;)

The point is, there will be no enforcement unless there's legal validity. If somebody really wanted to contest this point, I guess you could go to a court of law to challenge the validity.

Remember, EULAs are not the Law. When a court of Law upholds it as legally valid only then can it be enforced.

You're absolutely right. They also need to be legally enforceable. However, there has already been some case law that indicates the courts in the US support shrinkwrap licenses. As an example: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

Shrinkwrap licenses are not exactly the same thing as EULAs but they are pretty darn close. In fact, an argument could be made that they actually are the same thing. But that's not what I'm getting at. There is some case law that gives weight to the validity of license agreements in regard to software. Now, economic incentive needs to step in to encourage a business/organization/individual to pursue alleged violations of copyright. I don't believe there is any economic incentive in this situation.

Legal validity? Needed? Yes, but is very likely satisfied.
Economic incentive to pursue? No, not a chance.

"Fair use" is also a clause that can be used.

Fonts are just small fry. Microsoft wants everybody to use their products. The very fact that Microsoft fonts are now the standard shows that people use them everywhere. They aren't likely to restrict redistribution of it in any case...

There's also the issue of "innocent infringement." Fonts may well be owned by a third party and licensed to Microsoft. There are visual equivalents for most major fonts. If you decided to use a particular font, privately, and especially if you can point to such good-faith efforts as this very internet posting, I think that this would reasonably be "fair use" or "innocent infringement." But of course, I'm Not A Lawyer.

If you are contemplating commercial use, then you should as a matter of course have a knowledgeable attorney to advise you.

Furthermore, people may vastly prefer that your application allow them to choose the fonts, from among the fonts now installed on their own systems. Your application certainly ought not be bound to a particular font, nor a particular (human) language or locale. Those decisions need to be considered very early in the design process.

Microsoft has a copyright on every single piece of software in the OS, unfortunately this means you can't even use the font's. Try reading the copyright if you are still unsure.

THIS site has free fonts. I always go there, and they do have the basic microsoft fonts, so I don't think you're breaking the EULA at all. I would think M$ would shut down sites like that if you were.

Microsoft probably stole the fonts an is probably breaking copyrights itself.
It wouldn't prevent me from sleeping well at night to breack copyright laws. I wouldn't mind using a pirated version of xp if I had to. Microsoft itself doesn't care about the law.