Slashdot Mirror
No Windows CD, No Backup
"Recently, my school purchased a large number of computers from a certain OEM that likely has to follow these restrictions. These systems came with the obligatory label on one side of the case with the CD-Key, and a particularly interesting bootup screen.
One of the first screens displayed when you first turn on the computer is quite interesting. It is one which asks you to hit any key to confirm your acceptance of the license agreements that came with the computer. This alone would not be unusual (of course, the fact that this now may be legally binding is). But one line stands out to me from all the others: it claims that for the sake of the license agreements, the vendor supplied CD-ROM discs count as a backup copy! Now given I was not doing the installing, and did not see the paper EULAs, the following is pure specualation. But given most license agreements allow only one backup copy, no more can be made.
So my school has one backup disc per computer that can only be used in the lab, with apparently no rights to dupilicate secondary copies. If this was my personal system with only one of these, I would be quite nervous; I have an old office CD gone bad, and as far as I know, I never mistreated it.
On a side note, I sure hope the systems administrators here have copied all those specialized key numbers down and noted which system took which; once the kids get back in the fall, they love scribbling on the computers... and for MS's sake, you better hope no kid finds an ISO online and uses a key stuck to one of those systems to install it."
I don't understand why OEMs put up with this. I realize MS can railroad just about any change, but won't the inability to make backups make a given OEMs PCs look less attractive? I would think if enough end-users complain, the OEMs would stop letting MS push them around.
The less legally minded might be tempted to write down their serial numbers, then "borrow and burn" a real copy of WinX, so you could do a fresh install, then just copy your serial number back on the system. Gotta love regedit.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Apparently, looking at the way Microsoft incorporated sysdiff into the NT system, I can understand the reasoning behind this liscensing. Fortunately products like Symantics Ghost exist. I think this caused Microsoft to re-think it's backup/restore/imaging process and now you have the ability in Win2k to create a disk image. Unfortunately the liscense is written with the original philosophy in mind. OEM CD + sysdiff file would restore your PC. I don't however think the liscense reflects the Windows 98 product.
This is definitely one that the lawyers will have to address....
A license is just a bunch of words and, strictly speaking, it could assert that a ham sandwich is your backup copy for the purposes of the law that mandates you have the right to make a backup copy of all media.
That doesn't mean that a court wouldn't throw out that claim immediately - a ham sandwich won't protect you when, not if, you need that backup copy so it implicitly forces you to give up a right without compensation. The problem is that you have to get this license before a judge.
This claim isn't as silly... at least, not at first sight. However, the sole reason that people make backup copies of these discs is to ensure that there's no single point of failure. If the hard disk is corrupted, you have your original media. If your original media is unusable (e.g., because you have to constantly reinstall the OS for some odd reason and the media has become scratched), you have the backup media. If you don't have usable backup media, you *can't* just hop down to the store to buy a new copy - systems evolve so quickly that your only remaining choice is to buy a new computer! (It will probably be cheaper than trying to install a full copy of Windows, once you include staff costs.)
Therefore, I would argue that this clause is one of two things:
1) it says that the backups permitted under the law must be images of that disc, not of the installed system (which is rather silly since that's what you would duplicate anyway), or
2) it's null and void on its face because the purchase included both hardware and software, but that hardware has no value if that lone disc fails when you need it.
You're lucky - you can probably use each OEM disc to "back up" the others. If you only had one disc
I would document the various interpretations... and conclude that the only interpretation which made sense was that your archival copy is of the OEM disc, not the installed system. The alternative asks you to expose yourself to a significant amount of risk with no consideration.
On a somewhat related topic, why did the school buy a bunch of computers but fail to get a site license? That way all systems are loaded from a single disc and use a single key -- keeping track of dozens (or hundreds) of separate discs and keys is not a realistic possibility.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I just happen to do tech support for Dell's home/small business customers, and have to deal with explaining how to use these things to the customer. The fun thing about these is they're BIOS locked. I don't know to what extent (Dell won't tell us), but it may be done on a service tag level, meaning that the particular disk may be locked to a particular service tag (don't laugh too hard, our STM (think Ghost on a CD with a REALLY bad implementation of the restore on a floppy that doesn't work 90% of the time) disks do this). I'm not sure though, as the service tag is actually on the BIOS level. But we're weary of telling people to flash to the latest revision of the BIOS for their system for fear of what type of protection there is here. And considering that there are already 2 known issues requiring a BIOS flash on their XPS 4100 (or XPS Z) systems, I pray that it just checks for a Dell Certified(TM) BIOS. But then again, Dell's the same company that makes a new revision (2.0) of their Resource CD, chaning the filesystem layout as well as the user interface, and doesn't tell ANYONE in Tech Support about it for a good couple weeks, and all we have on it right now is the file list available to everyone in the knowledge base. Yes, Dell doesn't tell us where the drivers are on the CDs. We get to find out by trial and error mostly.
Rereading my comments, I should clarify that I'm not a lawyer, I am just presenting an "informed layman's" view on why this clause is probably unenforceable. This is a situation where case law is critical, so you'll need a lawyer to figure out what the courts will (probably) say the license really means.
One other item that may be on-point - no contract can force you to give up some rights (e.g., no matter how much you offer me I can't become your slave, be legally gravely or mortally wounded, etc.) I don't know if the rights to create archival backups are inalienable, but they *are* permitted by an specific law amending copyright law. I don't follow IP law closely, but it's certainly possible that this law prohibits any contractual restrictions on archival copies and the lawyers writing the license knew it. This, at least, can probably be checked by looking up the legislation in Thomas (thomas.loc.gov?).
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
What if you need a specific driver, program, windows setup? My father, who is no computer person at all, has a pacard hell and when it called for the win95 install disk he inserted it and it installed allright. Reformated his HD and did a clean wipe of the whole system.
I thought Slim Shadey was nuts, then I met my ex-wife.
I found it the same way and wondered the same thing. It seems that it is in the Your Rights Online section (even though it doesn't say so in the title) and like Ask Slashdot, those don't always appear on the front page (it seems silly that most Ask Slashdot's aren't on the front page because not enough people see the questions for the ones who know to respond which should be the whole point of Ask /. ). Add a YRO slashbox if you don't want to miss the stories.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
The sections are also accessible from the section links at the left side of the page, or the section links at the bottom of a story on the main page.
Or a YRO slashbox, of course.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
No, its actually in the license agreements from MS to the OEM that they must provide a "media-less" install, ie a copy of the os that is not the full operating system, but is one that only works with the system that it shipped with.
The OEMs don't have a choice on this one until the MS antitrust appeal is done, at which MS can't retaliate if an OEM insists that it not be a part of the contract. The antitrust trial could thus stop one more stupid thing by MS.
If Mr. Coward had read the PROMINENTLY LINKED story at the top of this article, he'd know it isn't the OEMs' decision, but Microsoft's policy.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I first read about this several months ago. Have not large corporations made sufficient noise to MS for this decision to be recanted? Or is everyone just swallowing and moving right along?
Given my experience with Slashcode, I have noticed that the moderator interface for posting submissions allows the moderator to select which items are most worthy to appear on the "front" page. If the moderator chooses not to place the submission on the front page, the only way to discover the post's existence would be to monitor the slashbox for that particular topic .. or monitor that topic's main page.
Fight Spammers!
There is a real simple solution. Go on Ebay, buy a no OS system and install Win9X on your system. Fuck the OEM box shit.
As long as there's an eBay, you'll be able to do what you want with this crap.