Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Shuts Auction Doors On Old Windows
mrv writes "Microsoft is keeping a more-vigilant eye on online auctions of old copies of Windows software, with people trying to offload it due to the upcoming release of XP. Also within the story is info and tips for donating a computer (and software licenses) to charity. (Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!)" A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software). Time to go re-read what sellers of used software have had to say last year, and the MS method of shutting own eBay auctions.
I should point out that microsoft rarely goes after people selling pirated or improperly licensed MS software when the amount is under $50,000 (US) or so. I have tried several times in the past to have marketplace competitors shut down for blatantly pirating software, and each time Microsoft has been primarily interested in the money value of the software in question. I suspect that there is a cost limit for them, and under a certain value there is nothing gained by prosecution or even basic legal action.
So with the obvious eBay incidents aside, I get the feeling you can quietly pirate your software to your heart's content, as long as you stay under the high-water mark.
my 2 cents.
EOM
An upgrade is a change or refresh of a product you already own. If you sell the original product, you no longer have the right to install the upgrade. It's been that way in the PC market since 1978 (well before M$ became dominant) and in the commercial software market long before that. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Similarly, even William Mossberg (of the WSJ) seems to think that it is onerous of Micros$oft to require home users to purchase a copy of the (M$) OS for each home PC that they wish to run that OS on. That has _always_ been required (with the specific exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as long as I can remember.
I am not happy about Microsoft's licensing policies, but some of these complaints are pretty bizarre in my ears.
sPh
It's lovely to see that we don't actually own the things we pay for (boy, do we ever) anymore, isn't it?
Would the legislation that the RIAA failed to get pushed through be viable for Microsoft if they decided they wanted to go blanking peoples' disks in the future?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I 'donate' windows to my friendly neighbourhood sanitation engineer?
dave.
...to NOT buy Windows. Really, it's very simple. People claiming that there's no applications on the alternatives aren't thinking clearly- there's applications on MacOS, Linux, and *BSD. Furthermore, all those applications would come your way real quick if you got off of the Windows platform. It's an addiction, like any other- you've got to quit it because it's becoming very obvious that the pusher's come a collecting all on all of you.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
So for everyone who wants to sell his old license: Look for your german mates and let them do the ebay.
Isn't windows only protected by a shrinkwrap license? How can they use that license to stop sales/auctions when it hasn't even been tested in court?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I was told to "aquire" 10 new lisences for NT at my place of work. So, I loaded up my favorite place to find prices online. I found some really cheap lisences for about 26 bucks. They said w/o CD, so I assumed that was the reason for the price being so good.
When they arrived, all I got was the books that have the authenticity cert on them. Each one had the "For distribution with a new PC only. NOT FOR RESALE" stickers partially remmoved. There went 260 down the drain.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
...we're making a tremendous leap of logic in assuming the EULAs are legally binding, aren't we?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
crap. I've always been at odds w- microsoft about this gay f-ing policy. Why can't you just let the lisence expire after say, 6 years or so. then let people knock themselves out. I mean come on, who is really using windows 95 anymore because they don't want to buy another lisence (put your hands down, I know there are a few in this community, but it that is NOT a global trend).
I can buy used microsoft video games at EB, why not used microsoft OS's.
Could I get a copy of that 'BritnetSpears.jpg.exe'?
That may be true but that's not what the article is about:
Charmaine Gravning, a product manager for Microsoft's Windows XP, said the policy is clear that people cannot sell or even share the software that comes pre-loaded on computers. If a consumer buys a copy of Windows in a store, they can resell the software, provided they include the license agreement, and all other documentation and don't try to sell multiple copies.
The issue here is cutomers trying to resell their bundled system software when they upgrade. If you upgrade to Linux, you're still not allowed to resell the bundled OS.
some software you want. When Ebay pulls his auction a day later, you can email him privately and pick up the woftware for a song.
So you are saying that if i buy windows 98se and then decide i dont want it i am not allowed to sell the media and license? WTF?
From the Yahoo article:
Why does Microsoft care about 5-year-old software anyway? I think they want to prevent people from selling used software so others have to buy the latest and greatest from Microsoft."
Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me. If users want the latest (and greatest?) Windows OS, they'll still have to buy it anyway. Newer software will not run on the old OS's eventually, rendering it useless.
They're really overdoing it with re-selling old ssoftware. Even the RIAA does not seem to mind secondhand CD's in the marketplace.
So, since these licenses cause the software to become value-less, is this sort of depreciation of software in line with accepted accounting practices?
If I'm a small business owner, can I depreciate the MS software that I purchase and thereby offset income and capital gains on my tax return?
I just wondered, because, IIRC, there are strict rules on how this can be done for real property, etc.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Sad but true, if it's in the license agreement that "Thou shalt not resell this OS", then that's the way the ball bounces, cookie crumbles, yadda yadda. It sucks, but that's the bitter pill that we as the consumer will probably have to swallow.
OTOH, if a person wants to DONATE a computer/software to a charity, or a school, I think MS ought to shut their collective legal yaps and let the charity/school get what productivity they can out of the thing, gratis. Nailing the Red Cross or a rural elementary school $100US for a 6 year old version of Win95 borders on criminal...I mean, how many BILLIONS does Gates and company really need?
So long as schools and charities are not using their software to pirate or commit crimes, MS ought to make themselves into a shining white knight and give their OS away to them. They do that, and the govt' will suddenly seem like the bully, rather than MS.
I still can't get past the fact that it's legal for the local CD store to buy & sell used CDs. The owner (I used to work for the place) makes an incredible amount of money by purchasing used CDs at $4 (tops) and selling them for $8. He keeps *all* the profit, not one penny goes back to the artists, the record labels, or the RIAA. So here's how it goes: it's illegal for me to *share* my CDs but it's legal for him to *sell* them ? Dylan described it best: "Money doesn't talk, it swears".
For us 14-17 year old hackers out there, how binding are EULA's (since a minor cannot enter into a legally binding conract with out his or her guardian)?
Summers
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Besides Microsoft, among the other 2,000 VeRO members include Adobe, Warner Bros, Vanderbilt University and the Hard Rock Café.
Hard Rock Cafe Intellectual Property?
IANAL!
While this has not be challenged in court, and it would be a tough battle. According to the letter of the law, Microsoft can not challenge copyright infringement on any of their products included in the antitrust case, since it used its copyright for antitrust purposes.
This would not cover XP.
$26 w/o CD is rather cheap for NT copies, no matter what you say. At that point, you're taking chances of being took for all you're worth. In this case, you were had for $260.
Perhaps using NT's not in your best interests if you can't afford it through more legit channels...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!
If only charities could find the time and know-how to use open source, they could save a lot of money, and direct the saved funds into their work.
Maybe tech-savvy people could donate know-how, instead of money in this case.
Although, AFAIK Microsoft does offer some sort od discount for charities.
"The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft," said Kay.
Carousel is a lie!
Here's Win 2K EULA excerpt about transfer of license:
Transfer to Third Party. Initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
Now, Microsoft may condemn people on the auction site as the seller cannot assert the buyer agreement to the EULA. Then, M$ can say the seller cannot assert that the buyer will not resell the software. All in all, this EULA does NOT rigorously govern on how the software may be resaled. Thus, M$ can bend this to their significance.
IANAL, but be careful on this issue.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
Let me get this straight. It's basically not possible any more to purchase a new PC without a copy of Windows bundled in (and included in the price), and you're not legally allowed to sell or even give this copy of Windows to anyone else?
So, even if you're upgrading from an old PC to a new PC and you want to use your copy of Windows 98 on this new PC, you're still required to pay for a copy of Windows XP that you can't get rid of? And if someone wants to get some new life out of an old PC, he's not allowed to have a copy of Windows 95 unless Microsoft lets him buy it from them (yeah right), even if you have an extra legal copy you're not using?
And what's more, Microsoft appears to be strong-arming the issue to get even more leeway. The article says that Ron Faul was selling two copies of Windows 95 and that Microsoft had eBay shut down the auctions; it doesn't say that these were preinstalled copies. I especially like this quote: "The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft."
Years and years and years of court cases against Microsoft, from their killing DR-DOS back in the early 1980's by spreading Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt all the way up to their killing Netscape in the late 1990's by 'cutting off their air supply,' and they're still powerful enough to pull trash like this -- Bill Gates is probably laughing his head off at the all-bark-no-bite of the American legal system.
If, as the story suggests, MS really is going after those selling even single lisences, (I can understand them freaking if I sold 20,000 NT lisc. packs all at once, for example), they're doing themselves no service. A few reasons for my statement.
#1 - a lot of the software in question can NOT be purchased new any more, so its not like MS is missing out on a Win95 sale - there's plenty of legitimate uses for old Win9x OS, esp if you have a machine that has limited RAM or CPU (ie my toshiba libretto, a P75 with 16MB). IE no loss. So why spend the $
#2 - people buying used OS's are not buying them to get the disks. Come on, everybody and their brother has a CDR and will burn you off a copy of the Windows cabinet files. I'd like to see a geek version of Survivor, where we get dropped into a foreign country and have to come up with a CDR filled with Microsoft Juarez as quickly as possible. It would be a half-hour show, unedited. Point: people are buying these things on EBay because they want to be quasi-legitimate, ie "I should buy a copy of the software that I use!". Remove that as a possibility, and how many people are really going to spend $150 on an OS for a $150 computer? Arrr, Billy, time t'uh fire up me CDR!
#3 - Given that many computer buyers pay extra for their copy of Windows (ie, it was an option for $100 or so - most system builders do this in the US, yes?). If I pay extra for a feature, can I not sell it off seperately? I (as joe computer buyer) didn't sign or agree anything beyond that flimsy click-through contract at startup, and who's to say it was even me that set up the computer instead of my 7 year old daughter?
I can't see this being a smart idea. All it does is make M$ look bad, and encourage those who want to go legit but don't want to buy, or cant use, the latest OS, to pirate.
Smart move, Billy....
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
We should all be thankful to Microsoft for tracking down these criminals. People like this are a menace to modern society. Microsoft employees have seen their stock options slide significantly in recent months, a cause of considerable stress for them. People who freely give away computers or sell for peanuts on auction sites - often without the proper licenses and documentation - these people are no better than thieves. Schools, charities for homeless people and orphanages are all implicated in this evil trade, which is causing some Microsoft employees to turn gray with worry. Well done Microsoft, you are a role model for us all.
I really found myself smiling at this. Isn't the idea that if you're upgrading that you have to still have the original licence?
For example.... with Dreamnweaver 3, when the user of that damn softawre in my company was given a new computer, part of the installation procedure was to type in the licence key for Dreamweaver 2. Okay, so this is really just to avoid people buying an upgrade when they aren't upgrading, but I think it's valid enough.
Tom.
Oh arse
I know that a Microsoft related question may be way off base here, but I want to get a feeling for this.
How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).
In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.
Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
... and this triggers the automatic MS bashing procedure at slashdot. I just remember that I read something like this just about two weeks ago.
Software is different than hardware and is easily cloneable. You can sell software for free like Linux, but you hardly can do that with hardware. So different rules apply here, i.e., if EULAs tell that you cannot resell that piece of software, so be it. The money you paid MS is only a right to use, not a right to sell (in most cases, but there are also scenarios where you can really "sell", i.e., transfer your right to somebody else).
¦ ©® ±
Reselling software is a first sale right. A EULA that takes this away is misuse of copyright. Trying to enforce that EULA should be an antitrust violation. Somebody should sue.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And I would really love them to tell me what the hell the difference is between an OS and a game. Its' all software, it's all mine, and I can damn well sell it if I want to. If you find me, you can tell me not to, but it's a bigger incentive for me and a bigger cash raiser if the goods I sell become grey-market...
To tie up their mail room. Fitting, especially since it is a licensing issue.
Since they refused to take the return, does the EULA that I did not agree to hold valid?
Fight Spammers!
Why is this even an issue for people? It's not as if this is the only company that does this. Alias|Wavefront is another company that does this. So good luck to anyone who has an EBay copy that A|W will not support. You can have the original discs, dongle, etc and Alias will say you are not lisenced and will not grant you a decryption key.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
If they prevent people from making a profit, or trying to re-coup expenses when getting rid of old equipment (hardware and software) then how could anyone not think that they are a monopoly. I think that the courts really need to define just how far the EULA extends, and not Microsoft.
If I buy a computer that comes pre-installed with Software, use it for a year or two, I should be able to sell it lock, stock and barrel.
It's how I buy a car, furniture, music, or anything else I have. I sell off or trade in my old crap to finance the new stuff. Maybe if Microsoft would offer trade-ins on the old stuff they wouldn't have to whine so much on the sales of older software. I for one would be willing to trade in my old copies of Win 3.1, 3.11, and 95 disks for some newer stuff.
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
EULA does not override the local law. For example in Finland can legally resell your Windows, because Microsoft EULA is in conflict with the local laws.
I'd love to know what my rights are here.
I recently spent about $1000 on PARTS for a complete system which I put together myself. I went back to the same store a week later, looking to buy an original copy of Windows 2000, and the guy sold me an OEM (no receipt, cash only) on the basis that I'd basically bought a system there the week before. I think he sold it to me for $280CDN. Fine.
I've since stopped using Windows 2000 (long story) on my PC, and since I wasn't using the OEM at all, I figured I'd get rid of it on eBay. I was completely unfront about my item in the auction - mentioned that it was an OPEN OEM copy, and that it had the original manuals, certificate of authentication, etc. and that I was no longer using it on my PC. Lo and behold, eBay pulled the auction about 12 hours later.
I guess my question involves rights. Did Microsoft + eBay have a right to pull my auction? And, if so, why?
Mark
mpytlik@home.com
Anyone wanna buy a copy of MS flight simulator 1.0? Anyone?
Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me
Apart from all the valid points contributed so far about ownership etc. I'd also point out that...
MS don't want you running old software, they want you to buy new software, and then pay to upgrade, and pay to upgrade it continuously.
New MS software in one area tends to force you to use new software elsewhere (XP ? Better upgrade to Office XP as 2000 is being phased out and might have problems. And IE6, as 5 may not run properly. Oh, and that include WMP, maybe you'd better buy something else too) - its called locking in the users and raiding their wallets.... and thats the part of their business model that I find unethical.... (wanna run IE, its free, but the new version with the bug fixes needs a new version of windows)
T
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
(It's no wonder they got three times more anthrax than everyone else. bin Laden must have realised the implications of that EULA.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Naive. You DO pay for windoze when you buy a new PC. The cost of windoze is rolled into the price of the computer. They hide this from you by not itemizing the bill and by preinstalling it and charging for THAT service so that it APPEARS you are getting windoze for "free" with the computer.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
we all have used windows before one way or the other and we hardly ever pay for it anyway...
either from pirate CDs, or warez or a copy from a friend - whose copy's probably pirated as well..
i'm really trying to understand something here. if you never payed for a copy of windows, why would you want to save up the money for a copy of XP?
another thing is that they people who want they old copy of windows would keep it... win98 SE is one of the better/moderately stable ones that dont take too much resources - relatively.
hmmm wait a minute. they probably need the extra cash for more RAM, more diskspace, and a new chipset whether or not they're going to pay for their copy of XP?
maybe we should aution off our pirate copies of BOTH MS_OFFICE and MS_WINDOWS....
... i guess win 3.1 all the 386es out there can run anyway..
my blog
That people shouldn't go bying Xp or any other M$ product at all. This article says it all "Go install a free operating system".
;-)
And I wonder why M$ doesn't make their cd's copy protected in the first place? That would surely stop this sort of problems
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
They can do business with whomever they please.
Best Slashdot Co
All you guys complain about stupid issues like this.... And i can't even Get my company to upgrade from win 3.1...and those are the good ones
some still use crappy monocrome terminals
If you don't like it get something else!
There was a learning curve when they first used Windows, too. It won't kill them to learn something.
But, as for those kids they are teaching...it seems to me that it is a far greater service to teach them how to program/work with freely available software. Someone who is really strapped for cash might be able to get an inexpensive computer, but forcing them to go out & buy tons of proprietary software in order to use it makes it far more expensive, which in turn only increases the divide.
Train them to program C, C++, Java, HTML, etc. with the freely available tools, however, and they have a real chance to break out & move themselves to a higher level.
"When your product is close to indestructable (be it software or diamonds) you don't want a thriving second hand market."
If that's the case, why's MS so keen to kill the second hand market- it's definitely NOT "indestructable"...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Our Bundesgerichtshof (federal civil court) has decided last year, that all Microsoft provisions trying to prevent the unbundling of OEM versions of the machines they came with are not enforcable against customers. Basicly the same as the "frist sale " - doctrine of American law.
m 00 /BGH/zivil/bgh49-00.html
Here is the press notice in German:
http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/Entscheidungen/presse
Moritz
...and everything to do with someone that MS can hit up for cash like their stuff was a protection racket. If it were about pirates, they'd go after them. This is about preventing copies of software out there that would keep people from needing to buy their latest stuff (like a drug pusher) so that people will get even more hooked on their stuff.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Or, then again you could do what I did:
Pirate DOS+Win3.1 -->
OS/2 v.3.0 -->
Slak w/linux kernel v.1.2.13 -->
FreeBSD
What does the future hold? I advise everyone to upgrade to Plan 9 NOW! When Plan 10 or 11 come out, you are not going to want to be the last person on the block to have it.
Seriously, you are not 31337 if more than 20 people use your OS.
Actually, scrap that, your best bet is to port NetBSD to that wind-up Mickey Mouse watch you've had since you were a kid.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
This is why you one should never sell MS software. Instead, one must share his copy with as many people as he can. Copy it for friends, copy it for relatives, let them all partake of your copy.
It is untraceable, secure and a sweet feeling to boot.
Class action lawsuit.
No wonder there is usually a clause for explosives, knives, chemicals and software to "keep out of reach of children".
If a minor can't be bound by the terms of a Piece of Software's (PoS?) contract, *and* is probably the only one in a household capable of *installing* the thing, it makes perfect sense.
Same thing with HDTV: "You have every right to 'time shift' the content...that is legal, as soon as you try to excercise that right...out come the cuffs/lawyers/MP|RI-AA."
Warning, Mixed Metaphores ahead...
So Microsoft is using an ounce of prevention (on ebay) to extract a pound of flesh?
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
"I (as joe computer buyer) didn't sign or agree anything beyond that flimsy click-through contract at startup..."
Actually, you did. If you bought an OEM version of Windows (i.e. your computer came with Windows), your software package has a sticker on it that says "For distribution with a new {your computer manufacturer's name here} PC only." You are legally not allowed to resell OEM bundled software on eBay. (This goes for other companies besides Microsoft as well... usually, you are not allowed to resell virus scanners, etc. if they came with your PC.) And don't discount that "flimsy click-through contract" either; your click-through constitutes a legally binding signature, and you can be held liable if you break anything in that contract, even if you didn't bother to read it.
There's loads of comments from people that were trying to sell a retail box (An unopened box in one case!) that they killed the auction. The story for this comment session indicates that charities can't even accept the software if it's transferred with the machine- they have to have a site license for at least Windows98 to avoid issues with MS.
Next time, read the articles linked to the story header.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
d00d get yourself a spellchecker
I can sell my retail copy of Windows 2000.
;-)
With Microsoft kindly removing all the OEM competition it should push the price i can get for it up.
Horay for Microsoft!
What hurts charity is people who dont find the time to donate time, items, money or blood unless there is some financial benefit in it for them.
If we are not allowed to sell an MS operating system (which I would never dream of doing because Eula says it's wrong...good old Eula) maybe we would all be better off just selling the old CDs as coasters...e.g.
"For Sale: Genuine Windows 98SE DRINK COASTER. Not for use as operating system. CD only included. Rendered useless for data retrieval by placement in PROTECTIVE SLEEVE. Please do not remove coaster from protective sleeve. $10."
Basically, it's just like everyone does with their AOL CDs, only this time don't glue felt on the back.
-Rothfuss
I wish I had a similar claim, but I haven't bought a complete system from anyone, partially for this reason, since Windows 3.1 days.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I see an advert for Dull Komputers, model 1000, includes Memorysuck Windows 99
I buy computer, not having to sign anything.
I power it up and run it for a couple years.
I decide I've seen the Plaid Screen '0 The Banshee too many times and opt for an alternative O/S
I wipe the hard drive, and install my other O/S
I take the CDROM and shrinkwrapped license and put it up for sale on Peoples Soviet Stalinistic Auction Site
I'm informed in a-not-so-polite way that my sale violates the terms and conditions of use for the license and software I have
Seems to me that barking at Memorysuck, Inc. and the auction site are the end of the line, which began with Dull Komputers announcement that I was getting the O/S, as part of the product, the sold. I should be able to sell off any part, as I owned it, right? Power supply, monitor, disk drive... seems whatever came with it is a component and should have been clearly stated if it was not, i.e.
Of course there's the slight problem of... I replace the HD, I replace the MB, I replace the case, I replace all the cards, hey, it's a completely different computer! I must be in violation, eh?
Just my 3.5 cents (adjusted for inflation) and by the way IANAL.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software).
Ah, You must be living in that funny country across the big pond.
Here in Europe, basic consumer rights say that you can sell whatever you leagally paid for, including software, even if the EULA says otherwise.
If microsoft doesn't like that, they can come and battle with the EU governement, or stop selling their products out here.
Roger.
I tried to sell 1 (that's ONE) copy of windows 2000 professional on E-BAY that I won at a microsoft recruiting seminar and I was contacted by microsoft's goons, insisting that I provide the serial number of the software or I would be reported to E-BAY
You are just talking out of your butt with nothing to suport it.
you can't ack before you balls.. you just
How is this $260 down the drain? You've got 10 Certificates of Authenticity and 10 CD-KEYs, right? That's all the proof you need that you own 10 licenses.
and this will get modded down to -1, but God what bastards they are.
...isn't licenced to 'my name'/'my company', it's licenced to "Everybody"/"Everywhere".
When I sell it (as I have every right to do), I'm NOT transferring that licence.
So the article mentions that charities need to have a site license and need to be running at least Win98. Uh, sez who?
If, as a charity, I'm using 10 PCs, all of which were (properly) donated with properly licensed copies of Windows 3.1, or Windows 95, I'm perfectly legal...
Specifically, I received a copy of Windows NT 4.0 workstation with my copy of Visual C++ I purchased in college. I attempted to sell just the NT 4.0 workstation CD (with key, and thus its license). I never installed the CD on any of my machines, so I thought it would be ok.
MS contacted eBay and my auction was immediately shut down for "illegal goods". When I asked eBay customer support the reason, they said that Microsoft claimed I was selling the CD without a proper license. I said to them I was selling the CD with its associated license, and I had never installed the software. They said to contact Microsoft, which I did and it was never resolved.
To this date I harbor no ill will towards MS or eBay (I've completed dozens of other auctions without issue, and for what eBay does [getting a ton of people to look at your auction], it does well). Still, I can't imagine what it'll be like in the future.
Here's a thought that should stir the pot.
Let's assume that a person is selling, on Ebay, Windows 95, which was pre-installed on a PC or whatever the case may be.
Why not simply state, at the beginning of the ad, that the seller acquired the PC, but does not agree to the EULA.
Why might this work? Well, if Microsoft is as lax about EULA refunds as many claim, then I am fairly certain that Microsoft is showing failure to agree on the contract.
This will, at the least, put Microsoft in a somewhat unfavorable position legally, as it could be shown they were neglegent to a degree.
All the seller wishes to do is to sell his "property" for a fair market value, given that the distributor has not fulfilled on the agreement.
I believe that most lawyers at MS would just as soon agree that it would be financially easier to simply turn a blind eye toward that sale, and focus on other, easier cases.
What do you all think??
-D
The RIAA tried unsuccessfully to strong-arm independent music retailers into not selling used CD's back in 1992 or 1993. They threatened to pull all co-op advertising money if the smaller stores continued which kind of stuck the retailers between a rock and a hard place.
They had to sell used CD's in order to make SOME profit since places like Best Buy sold new CD's below cost and they certainly didn't want to give up the ad money. Finally enough of the independent stores, through NARM (National Association of Record Merchanisers) told the RIAA to shove it...and they did.
The best part was how the RIAA was using Garth Brooks as their point man on the deal. You should have heard him whine about not getting a second royalty on the used CD. It would have made Metallica proud.
In this case, a royalty has already been paid. Imagine if someone had to pay the estate of James Joyce a royalty everytime a fifty cent copy of "A Portrait of the Artist..." is sold at a campus used bookstore.
The RIAA is hot and bothered not about the sharer, but the person downloading all the tunes who may not have purchased a copy of the original recording. Problem is, it's easier to try and shut down the sharer then nail every single person who downloads the new Strokes album off of Kazaa.
Sort of like HRC's reputation as a fine eating establishment.
I just did a search for "Windows OEM" on eBay and came up with 40 hits. Not bad for an organization 'cracking' down on OEM sales.
What I find interesting is that most of the auctions have something like this added to the description:
"This item will ship with a hard drive or motherboard in order to comply with eBay, Microsoft, and Corel rules and requirements.
The hard drive or motherboard is used, probably defective, untested, and there is no warranty of any kind with it."
Leave it to someone to come up with a workaround.
liB
"The federal court stated, that there is "no way to deduce from Copyright a right to control distribution channels.""
But copyright IS a right to control distribution channels!
The clue is, that germany has no copyright. It's called Urheberrecht. "author's right" is a good translation.
Many interesting discussions about the legalities and such below...but maybe MS is worried about a free market (auction) determining the real price consumers are willing to pay for their product.
You know, lying makes baby jesus cry!
EULAs aren't valid contracts. You didn't see them before you bought the software and they attempt to keep you from using the software until you agree to their limitations, even though you purchased it.
Ask any lawyer if you can sell someone a product (a car for instance) and then hold them to a contract which you taped over the ignition. They'll all laugh at you.
How much does MS pay you to post lies on sites like Slashdot? Don't you know it's illegal in most countries for people to deliberately mislead others in legal matters?
Now taking bids for this exquisite, brown cardboard box! This mildly used, but still fully functional, box will be shipped to the winner of this auction.
As a special bonus, the winner of this box will receive Win98 OS for their PC, free!
Bidding for the box starts at $10 + $5 shipping.
ShoutingMan.com
Ever since the mid 1980's, I have claimed that Microsoft's operating systems have basically been toys. I still haven't changed that opinion. They are good at providing a way for games to boot and access the hardware. For applications beyond games, the productivity and stability of Microsoft's products are measurably poor relative to more serious OS's. Even for business applications, Microsoft products feel like toys. Just watch some of the "suits" playing with Powerpoint sometime. I work in a mixed MS and *NIX environment, and all the serious software and hardware development is done on some flavor of *NIX.
With the Xbox, I see a shift back to a real toy paradigm for Microsoft. It will be interesting to see how much Xbox canibalizes the market which buys PC's mainly for a few application types, like gaming. The majority of users out there don't see computers as development tool. They see computers as an appliance that allows them to do email, web browsing, word processing, and games. I don't think that the majority of end users really care what OS is running. The choice of OS is mostly based on what the majority of people are using so that everyone can speak a common user language ("click on this, now click on that, now click on this"). A full fledged MS OS is more than most people need for daily computer fiddling. Most users would rather not be clicking through hardware profile and registry settings.
If a major shift occurs toward an Xbox model for end-users, there won't be much demand for used copies of old MS OS's, except for maybe "classic gaming". Are people selling old copies of MSDOS 5.0 anymore? Most people upgrade now because each new MS OS is perceived to be less crappy than the previous one. Since Xbox is a more controlled environment, and potentially more stable, will there be much motivation to upgrade?
One possible vision is that one would have an Xbox for playing games, checking on email, looking at multimedia web sites, etc. (appliance stuff); and if one wants to do more serious development, one would have a PC with possibly a MS OS or Linux or something else. There will definitely be a niche of "just click on it" multimedia developers that continue to use their MS OS and MacOS based computers. The more serious infrastructure developers will continue to migrate to more productive OS's.
If the Xbox does start to canibalize Microsoft's revenue stream from selling OS's for PC's, I wonder what they might cripple in the Xbox to keep people continuously buying and upgrading PC's.
Microsoft's attacks on ebay extend beyond simple software, to just about anything they produce. Twice this year I have tried to sell a Microsoft Sidewinder joystick, specifically stating that it was just the hardware with NO software. Both times Microsoft had ebay shut the auction down because the M$ search bot told ebay that I was selling software innaproprietly. I replied to Microsoft's email stating that I was only selling hardware, and threatened to sue for libel. My email was ignored, and the auction unable to proceed.
My only real recourse to this action would have been to actually sue Microsoft. Unfortunately I do not have the time to sue Microsoft over a small matter, especially given that they could likely blame the software and get away on technicalites.
This incident was what really pushed me away from Microsoft. I have had mixed opinions about the company for a very long time, and over the years moved away from Windows anyway, but when they pushed me around with legal muscle, I decided to just walk away for good. Of course, it worked out well in the end, as I now get to enjoy Apple's OS X.
Software publishers have been pushing fiction as fact in the hopes that it will become fact. Indeed, many people now believe that software publishers can add and enforce additional restrictions above and beyond copyright restrictions after the sale has taken place. In reality, after buying a copy of any copyrighted work, you're free to dispose of it as you see fit. Tear the pages out of a book you no longer read and use them as kindling or emergency toilet paper. Use your old Windows 95 and Office CDROM's as coasters or frisbees. Shim up that wobbly table with those useless copies of Microsoft Bob. Sell your old, useless, buggy software to suckers on eBay or at the local geek flea market. But don't be a sucker yourself. Don't be fooled into taking a total loss on software you no longer use by the proprietary software industry's propaganda.
I'm not sure that assumption (that they don't care if you sold your preinstalled NT license after buying a full version of WXP) is valid. I've heard too many horror stories with companies ending up with *three* Windows licenses for their new systems - the bundled OS, the "site license" OS which turns out to only cover existing systems, and a retail version of the same OS.
It's pretty clear that MS considers bundled OS licenses to be mandatory and non-transferable. If you want all of your systems to be running the same version of the OS (which you certainly do, to reduce maintenance costs) that's an independent problem and you'll just have to live with handing over hard cash for a new set of licenses.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I read those articles and the comments. Found the one case that matched what I was looking for. You mentioned it yourself, one case of an unopened box auction getting cancelled.
What I was wondering was if there was more than that one isolated case. Everything else looks like "I bought it with the computer, I should be able to sell it separate" OEM nonsense. One case of legitimate incorrect cancellation does not a case for MS=Evil make.
I think it's completely valid for this comment session. We're talking about MS abusing its power to keep auctions from happening. I want to know, first hand, how many times it's happened to people legitimately. I feel I'm justified in bringing this up, because it can lend a whole different tone to this discussion.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Microsoft business practices are bad for the US economy. Their anti-competitive practices should be stopped cold by the Bush administration in order to help restart the economy and increase the amount of money available.
Help the economy, don't buy Microsoft products.
if they wouldnt try to rape us with terms on XP, and develop a legitametely (sp?) good piece of software this wouldn't be an issue. I would HAPPILY fork out 90 bucks for XP with 98's TOS. I would more than happily spill out 40 if i had to deal with being raped by the TOS. Why dont companies understand this? My company makes glade, raid, edge, etc...maybe ill suggest to marketing that they start charging per dead bug, shaved leg, or "freshened room." I mean, glade DOES harness the precious power of oils, it says so in our commercial.
________________________________________________
The only way around this is to build your PC from components, which is what I've been doing for over 6 years now.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
for the /. anti-capitalists,
just about anything you buy which includes a 'free', 'zero percent financing', 'zero down', etc, has the cost of the 'free' stuff included in the price.
You may now continue making the minimum payments on your maxed out credit cards.
Be lame, whine about evil corporations, whine about discrimination, figure out how you are a victim...(repeat cycle)
Of course there's the slight problem of... I replace the HD, I replace the MB, I replace the case, I replace all the cards, hey, it's a completely different computer! I must be in violation, eh?
Oh, but then MS would have to guarantee you don't do that by tying the OS license to the hardware config. Change too many components, and you have to beg them to let you keep using their software...
uh oh, too late...that's already happened.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
>One case of legitimate incorrect cancellation
>does not a case for MS=Evil make.
With the right amount of pressure applied, and a certain type of attention focused on it, one case
of an illegal action could very well be their downfall, particularly if they knew it was wrong.
Were you aware that early records included licenses that restricted the purchaser from reselling them, or even playing them on unauthorized players?
Those restrictions went into the dustbin of history.
Even earlier, books used to have the same restrictions. You could not sell them, loan them to others, etc. Benjamin Franklin, that radical, really shook up a lot of people when he created public libraries that lent books to anyone who asked.
Again, those early restrictions went into the dustbin of history.
Off the top of my mind, I think *every* new media has started out with this "you don't own the material, you only lease it, and you can't transfer or sell your right to access it" crap. Or worse, the time-restricted variant like that unlamented "Div-X" DVD format.
Software is no exception. It's only because of our collective short memory that Microsoft is currently getting away with this... and the RIAA and MPAA are trying to revive the same crap that our great-grandparents defeated.
NOBODY is claiming that the $200 you pay for a retail copy of Windows gives you the right to duplicate it and sell it to others. But that is ALL copyright is intended to stop - prior to copyright laws it was common for publishers to reprint and sell books published by others, without any compensation to the owner or original publisher. And even that "abuse" wasn't totally unreasonable prior to the development of good distribution channels. (This was done even before canals were first built, when transportation was always extremely expensive because it involved mule trains on muddy roads that where often unpassable.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Here's a hypothetical question I have:
If I am selling a Windows 2000 Pro CD online, but claim that I am only selling the phsical CD, is that illegal? Meaning, who's to stop me from selling the physical plastic disc, irregardless of the 1's and 0's pressed into it?
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
or whatever the f the username is. I clicked on a link from another comment and its gone. I wanted to see the comments damnit. Oh well, if anyone gets a line on a new user name, post it here so I can see.
________________________________________________
Well, sort of, but not really. Here's really why they care: they don't want potential new users investing their time learning "old" skills. They don't want to create new Windows 3.1 users, or Word 5 users. But they'd love it if more people became Win98/2K/XP users, or Office 2000 users. It's the old network effect, which Microsoft knows all too well. Microsoft wants whatever they're selling now to be the standard.
...since price controls were in effect, they couldn't charge just whatever they wanted to sell used farm equipment. But they could sell farm equipment with other stuff and charge whatever they wanted. So ads would appear reading something like "For sale: 2 bales of hay. Comes with a free, like-new John Deere tractor. $1200." I wonder if we could do something similar, like, say, "Metallica CD for sale, comes with free Windows 98 CD and manual, $50".
You're rather disingenuously ignoring the fact that an upgrade for software is generally understood to be a license to a new version of the software given at a discount because you already hold and have paid for a previous license; whereas all of the upgrades in your post are actually new things purchased and intended to replace old, different things. It is not the same thing at all.
And we had to buy them with a serial cable. I suspect something fishy about this transaction, but IANAL, and we needed licenses to upgrade certain machines...
Frankly, I hope Microsoft continues along this "anti-piracy" policy. We've already decided that XP is NOT where we want to go today. If they keep pushing this issue as hard as they are, this die-hard NT shop could end up purchasing Linux for our next generation of industrial systems.
(you see, I knew there had to be a reason not to sell back my accounting textbook!)
disclaimer: IANAA, JAJWTHF*
A depreciation expense transaction is a credit to equipment assets balanced by a debit to retained income. The equipment assets come from recording the original purchase as a debit to equipment assets balanced by a credit to cash (or accounts payable, whatever).
So you see, in order for depreciation to be honest in this case, you would have to argue that Microsoft software was a business asset, which is pretty shady bookkeeping, if you ask me.
* - I Am Not An Accountant, Just A Jerk Who Thinks He's Funny
Similarly, when you take part in a refrigerator trade-in sponsered by an electric utility, you must provide proof that the original refrigerator was scrapped, otherwise the point of the program (to increase energy efficiency) would be nullified.
Both are better analogies to software upgrades.
sPh
Shouldn't be a law that prevents a monopoly from adding whatever it wants to a license of a product that almost everyone must eventually buy?
I find it utterly fascinating that a source listing for that page (WinXP) is littered with Javascript, something I was under the impression Microsoft was dumping support for.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And the cost of the CD's (what is it now? Like $20) along with the $3 or so to ship each one more than makes up for the few freebies they end up giving away, I'll bet.
If you purchased an UPGRADE copy of say win98 to replace your win95, you DID NOT get a new license for win98. Your ORIGINAL win95 license was UPGRADED to win98. You therefore CAN NOT legally sell your 'used' win95 software (UNLESS you ALSO give away ALL your copies of win98 as well). Now if you went and bought a FULL version of win98 to replace your win95, then you DO have an 'extra' license and you could (in theory) sell that win95 software, but the EULA proabably prohibits it.
If you have a shrinkwrapped box copy of any ms software that was never opened and the shrinkwrap is still in place around the box, then you should be able to sell it. Since you never opened the box you never invoked the EULA and it can't apply to you!
In the case of Linux, you can't except if you paid for it. For Windows, you should write off what you paid. And then write off 50% of the value of the perfectly fine computer it was installed on. After installing Windows, it's now a sad pile of dysfunctional junk. Consider it "the cost of doing business with uncle Bill".
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
Actually engine upgrades can be just software changes. Engines in trucks are often upgraded just by changing the fuel map. It cost more for the higher hp, and you can no longer use the old engine.
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
Betcha they just grep all their auctions for 'Microsoft' and send the people legal notices, pull the product, tell them to contact Microsoft, which promptly ignores them.
Wouldn't it be fun to come out with a tiny soft cotton girls T-shirt. Include a CD Rom which contains pictures of your girlfriend wearing the shirt. Sell it on E-Bay as the 'Micro Soft-Wear line of T shirts and CD-ROM'. Wait for microsoft to threaten to sue you. Sue them back. Probably make more money suing them than you would selling t-shirts.
As for Muslims protesting OBL in the streets, I have to admit that I'm disappointed myself. Remember, most of the people living in the Mid-east are ignorant by our standards, and so they just like to get angry a lot, even if it's stupid (imagine a country full of rednecks).
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Thanks for actually reading what I was saying.
Hmmm. Someone modded my remarks as Flamebait. I'm not flaming, alghough not exactly in the closet either.
MS is a huge monopoly, but they're not inherently evil.
This is the first time I ask this. But others on slashdot have expressed this opinion before. That MS is not inherently evil.
I'm not so sure. I've watched MS since before the Macintosh. Before the IBM PC. Back when I filled out a Reader Service card in 1979 issue of Byte to get into about Microsoft Adventure -- their own implementation of the famous Adventure game.
Does a corporation ever become inherently evil? At what point? If the directors and principals of EvilCorp do evil things, doesn't that make the corp itself evil? Things like eliminating opportunity in an entire industry. At one time, the computer industry was just swarming with opportunity. MS now owns every category. And if you come up with a new one, they will either buy you (bend over) or squish you. What about a corp eliminating jobs (of competitors)? Locking in users and charging high prices? Forced upgrades? Forced purchase of an OS you don't want? What about how MS got its monopoly in the first place -- by requiring OEMs to pay for an MS license, even if they shipped the machine with a competitor's OS and no MS OS? Isn't this evil? Doesn't this make MS evil?
What I would ask [to all who express this view] is: can a corp do anything and still not be considered evil? What about car companies that decide its cheaper to settle lawsuits for exploding gas tanks rather than to fix them? etc., etc.
Methinks all the young'uns who got out of high school very recently (say 1990 or later) have no idea of the things MS has done in the past. So they seem relatively clean.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
If this is really bothering you then civil disobedience is the key. Log into e-bay and post a thousand sales of individual licences. Set your minimum price to $1000 dollars for a win9x licence just to make sure no one actually buys it and then sit back and wait for microsoft (and e-bay)to waste it's time searching out, reporting, and cancelling bogus auctions.
I realize this is a little off topic, but...
I've searched Microsoft's site and Google for a long time in an attempt to find the Windows XP End User License Agreement (EULA). No EULAs are on MS's site except for some driver development kit. I'm not too surprised, since they probabaly wouldn't want anyone reading it before buying a product. Google also found nothing, probably because the EULA is copywritten, so it's illegal to post it online if you're not MS!
Does anyone have a link to the full EULA for Windows XP, or any MS products for that matter? I'd like to take the most absurd parts and e-mail it to everyone I know, hoping they will pass it on and prevent some people from buying XP. Thanks in advance to anyone who posts a link.
Developers: We can use your help.
Responding to recent events on Earth, Bill Gates, the creator of the omniscient Windows, used by billions of computer users worldwide, angrily clarified His license agreement today.
"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again" said Bill, visibly angry.
"Somehow, people keep getting the idea that I don't mind them giving away or reselling copies of Windows. Well, I do mind. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only can you not copy or give away Windows, but you can't resell a copy bought from an OEM. I don't care if you're a school, a charity, or a damn orphanage, the rules apply to you."
"I don't care how poor you are, or how much you need a copy of Windows. If someone tells you I don't mind you making a copy, they're wrong. Got it? I own it all, ok? It's all there in the license agreement. It all belongs to me. You mean nothing to me. You bunch of fucking loosers."
And he sniggered.
The issue here is cutomers trying to resell their bundled system software when they upgrade. If you upgrade to Linux, you're still not allowed to resell the bundled OS.
And why not?
Because the EULA says so? Interesting concept: You're bound by a contract you didn't agree to.
Here's one that should make your head explode: By reading this post, you agree to agree with everything I say. By NOT reading this post, you agree to agree with everything I say.
So now everybody in the world (including you) has to agree with what I say, right?
Bottom line: I bought something (CD and license), Right of first sale says I can re-sell it to whoever I damnwell please. (as long as I don't keep a copy.)
Somehow we need one or two popular newspapers to print the GPL side by side with the Microsoft EULA, so people can see what they've been locked into! Just put the two licenses side by side and add some commentary, and bingo, instant illumination!
Ah, I can dream, can't I?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Mark Minasi (a well known Windows author) wrote a book called The Software Conspiracy. In this book he examined many EULAs from the legal point of view. There are a number of arguments made about where these agreements violate law, but the main one is a contract of adhesion. In other words, you cannot see the contract until you buy or try to install the product.
The absurdity of this becomes really obvious if you extend this to another topic. For example, what if you could not read the contract for purchasing your car until after you'd purchased the car? How many of you would go for that?
As far as the EBay discussion goes, MS has a right to prevent resales of these products. This happens all the time in the real world. Ever go to a restaurant and see the little Heinz ketchup bottles labeled "Not for resale"? That's what it means. There are lower priced distribution channels for distributing these things and they cannot be resold in the retail market.
Same for the OEM software. It is legally tied to the hardware. If you choose to install Linux and boot M$ Windows, you should still include the Windows software when you sell the machine. Legally, that's the only way it can be used.
Now I'm not condoning this. It's not a specific MS thing, lots of software companies have similar outrageous claims. You used to not be able to sell your Gauntlet firewall, period!!! They locked the hardware/software to your IP and you had to "obtain" permission from the vendor before transferring a license. That's worse than this case.
If you cannot "resell" MS licences, can you donate them? And if yoy can, does it have to be to a charity? Can you basically give it away? I mean, can I give my old copy of Win98 to my friend as a gift? This reminds me of a sales tax that when you buy a used car. The tax is assesed based on the amount you pay for a car, but if the car is a gift, then you don't pay anything. For example, you pay 3,000 for a car, and you go to the notary public with a seller, and you both sign that the car was a gift. You save about 100 bucks. So, people can sell their old software and claim that it was a gift. Is it legal? Yes, as long as you don't get caught. MS has been doing illegal things for 10 years. I think users should also get granted 10 years of illegal activities in order to ditch their crappy Win95 CDs.
Microsoft's biggest competition comes from its own obsolete software. They're not worried that they're losing the profits from a win9x sale, they're worried that you're choosing to use a copy of YAOS (for values of YAOS != M$OS.current_version), thus depriving them of a sale of WinXP. If they can reduce the supply of all obsolete versions of their software, then it's more likely that joe user will pay to license the current version.
Oh, and I'm sure that Intel would agree with them that since you can't legally get a copy of win95 anymore that it's time to upgrade your hardware as well...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
JavaScript's actually been ported over to .NET as a compiled lanaguage, so no.
Microsoft pretty much gave their fantasy quest of getting people to use client-side VBScript years ago. (They actually once published a browser-detection script in VBScript.)
Nope, Javascript (or at least their flavor of it) is a part of Microsoft's DHTML "standard". Do a search for JScript on their site and you'll find all sorts of goodies about it. I should know this since I do JScript programming.
MS is actually trying to cripple Java, which has absolutely no relation to Javascript. The name "Javascript" was put on Netscape's scripting language to cash in on the brand. Microsoft hijacked it into DHTML and JScript.
But that's a whole 'nother story, and midly offtopic for here.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
You are an impossibly sanctimoneous asshole. Everything from your self-important sig to the self-congratulatory nature of everything you've written is more than sufficient to make this statement.
Having said that, I would like to now invite you to die. Thanks for your co-operation.
Just sell it with the motherboard, I say. That's the only component that could strictly speaking be called the computer: "it's a dell" "it's a compaq" "it's an abit"
do you really want to keep that 2 yr old motherboard? Well I guess you might. I might. and I guess a new motherboard costs about as much as an ms os, give or take. But then figure, you get to increase the selling price because you're always including a mobo with it. And after that sale, the license no longer applies, am I right?
so the answer is increased mobo liquidity. There!
Hmm... is it ironic when one country full of rednecks bombs another, or is it just stupid?
As to your sig: it's stupid. Can you point out "Islam" to me, sitting by itself in the world, so that we can characterize it? No, here's the thing: "Islam" is just the aggregation of all the people we label "Muslims" believe (same with any other religion, natch; everything in this little rant applies equally to religions other than Islam). "But what about the Koran? Isn't that an objective definition of what Islam is?" Sorry; the Koran is as full of innacuracies, absurdities, and contradictions as any other holy book. To be of actual use to anybody, it needs to be interpreted, and then we're back where we just were, with a religion being whatever the people in it do. "But not all Muslims believe the same thing! (In particular, most don't believe that this terrorism shit is justified)." Absolutely. But that's just to say that the term "Islam" is overly broad; it denotes a whole set of belief systems, rather than a single one. The thing isn't that the peaceful turbaned chap down the street from me is following Islam correctly and the clowns in Afghanistan are following it incorrectly; it's that they're really following different religions, and we just call them both "Islam" because they come from a common historical background, and if we start refining our abstractions about religious groups, it's unclear where to stop before we get to each individual being the only member of his own religion.
They are obsolete. Laws are already in place(copyright, computer crime), to protect software makers from what's in most EULAs. The only other purpose they serve is to place draconian restrictions that shouldn't be allowed in the first place(no reverse engineering, can't use for x and y things).
IMO EULAs should not be legally binding. They serve no purpose other than restricting our rights to own something we buy.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
That's pure fiction. If it was truth, you'd have to trade in the previous version (or at least prove that you owned it) at the time you purchased the upgrade. In reality, these "upgrade" copies of the software are sold on retail shelves to anyone who wants to buy them.
No, neither are good analogies because when you aquire the upgrade copy for a bit of software the only term of sale is that you pay the amount money listed on the pricetag. It's entirely different from a purchase with trade-in, like the engine trade-in scenario you describe where the trade-in is part of the price of the new item. And it's different from the refrigerator rebate/discount where the electric company usually comes to collect your old fridge before any discount or rebate is consummated.
If Microsoft were offering a rebate for folks who returned their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But they aren't, and so it isn't.
sPh
There's no reason why the old software eeprom can't be saved and used for example in another truck which has had its software inadvertantly erased or damaged. After all, you paid to lawfully aquire a copy of the first version, and then paid again to lawfully aquire a copy of the second version.
(If the truck vendor was offering a rebate for folks who returned or destroyed their old software, or were doing a "trade-in" program, your point would be more valid. But according to your description they aren't, and so it isn't.)
Donating to charity and non-profit orginizations is a really really good thing. I support it wholeheartedly as I work for a nonprofit orginization. Funding is tough, and getting gear to replace the stuff that's falling apart and no longer working is even harder. Upgrading to windows 2000 is a completely laughable idea with our current system and most workstations are pentium 200 or less with not very much ram.
If you're in washington state and wish to donate, please e-mail me. We could use the help. Thanks!
[)(]subliminal labs[)(]
It would seem that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on in regard to folks who are under the age of consent when the purchase takes place. Most jusrisdictions don't allow underage folks to enter into legaly binding contracts. Perhaps minors should be required to have a note from their mothers before they can purchase a shrink wrapped product.
IANAL. thank god
Even today, many packages require you to insert the original first floppy disk (many come with a floppy just for that purpose, which is serialized) or the original CD (also serialized) before they will install the upgrade.
sPh
Yes there is. That's not how the upgrade works.
I don't know what eeprom you are talking about. You didn't buy a program, or rights to a program, nor will you find specs for the program and you will definitely void the waranty on your $150K truck by messing with your fuel map.
You upgraded the engine to 500hp and you lost the use of your 450 hp engine.
When you upgrade from WinNT to Win2000, you gained use of Win2000 and lost use of WinNT (assuming one OS per machine). Seems like the same deal to me.
Sure I hate the plan; I like getting more for my money than that, but it isn't unreasonable to license software like that.
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
Yep. If vendors want to predicate the purchase of a new copy on the return/destruction of an old one, this is one way to do it. Publishers use a similar scheme when refunding booksellers for unsellable books and magazines. To get a refund, the bookseller removes the cover and mails it back to the publisher along with a letter promising to destroy the remaining pages. Not only does this method provide proof that the reseller actually had the number of unsellable copies it claimed to, but it also avoids shipping around entire books that are just going to end up in an incinerator/shredder and provides a strong legal and asthetic deterrance to sale rather than destruction of the copies reported as junked.
On almost all modern engines, the fuel map and other tunable parameters are managed by an electronic controller of some sort. This controller device usually contains a small microprocessor or microcontroller, which loads its software from an eeprom, flash memory, or similar device. The software program controls the engine operation. Indeed, the software can be modified, and many people make a great deal of money selling replacement software, especially for small, lightweight imported automobiles. Of course, the quality of this replacement software varies widely, which is why many folks are glad they have the choice to go back to the old software and sell the replacement chip, keep the new software and sell the old part, or keep both parts and use one as a spare.
Void the warranty? Perhaps yes. Be liable for severe civil and criminal penalties under copyright law? Certainly no.
Office 95 is not a valid upgrade. You'll need Office 97 or better to qualify for the upgrade.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
He wants all of it. I would have thought that was pretty damn obvious by now..
He won't rest until we have windows logos in the corner of our vision, making micropayments for every single breath of air.
I believe that eBay does not allow what they
think is an auction of an item disguised as
an auction of something else with a free bonus. So, I could not post an auction of a key for
$150,000 in the general merchandise section
that comes with a free bonus house.
Microsoft wants everyone to be running a copy of their software that can be controlled by them.
They don't want non-controlled and non-controllable software to exist, because they can't then turn you off if you don't do what they say.
One way to accomplish this is to tie the software to hardware that's rapidly obsolescing.
Anyway, eventually we'll all be part of the Borg^H^H^Hill, living on a cubic spaceship (incompatible with the spherical spaceship from that *other* company), and then a starship from the United Federation of Planets will liberate us.
And I can't wait to meet Geri Ryan! (Be still my beating heart.)
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Here's the part I don't understand:
"Microsoft is keeping a more-vigilant eye on online auctions of old copies of Windows software, with people trying to offload it due to the upcoming release of XP.
Seems to me that people would be trying to stockpile old copies of Windows software due to the upcoming release of XP.
What are you talking about? I am talking REALITY. Objective fact, the ONLY thing that matters, the only thing that exists, and you make it into some anti-capitalist, whining, this and that nonsense.
I would advocate that ALL hidden costs become no longer hidden. If you buy a computer, the cost passed on to the consumer should be itemized on the bill: labor charges, software charges (there is no FREE windoze software), support charges, etc. It is called telling the truth rather than allowing companies to lie to the consumer about what they are getting and what it is costing.
It should also stipulate that you pay for software but do not own it. I am sure that most people think that when they buy software, hardware, whatever-ware, books, newspapers, CDs, TVs, etc, they own it. They SHOULD own it but they are not aware that ONE item in the above list is different (magically, some how) from EVERYTHING else. This is largely a M$ fabrication and purchasers should be made aware of this alternate reality too.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Can someone explain to me why a Class Action lawsuit would not be appropriate here?
When I started Outlook tonight (what can I say - it was bundled with my computer), M$ made me click through a new EULA. They did a good job hiding the EULA after I clicked through it - I can only find the old version (6/2000) on my hard drive... /. in between trying to take over the world...
It did go into excruciating detail on resale rights (or lack thereof), especially with OEM software. Maybe Bill reads
Once the products have no value, even a charity can afford them.
God you are an idiot
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is nothing like a good analogy - a closer analogy would be "if you sell your 140hp engine, you cannot attach your new turbo to it" - becuase you aint got it any more!
The MS "upgrade" license is more like a trade in - notice that they don't call the new OS "windows yada version 1.1" - it's always a completely new product name. In fact, if you beleive the blurb on XP, they only just now invented video playback, central management, and network access. And hey - XP lets you connect USB cameras. Er - so did 98 dudes.
"if I swap you my 140hp engine plus $600 for that 280hp engine" then do I still have the 140hp engine?
If I swap my 98 license plus $100 or whatever the cost is for that shiny new XP license, do I still have the 98 license?
erm If I swap my working 98 install for that bloated, doesn't-work-with-half-my-peripherals-or-games, take-ages-to-do-anything, shiny-supeficial-makeover OS am I mad? YOU BET. 98 is wot I got on my games machine and no later MS OS has been able to run all the things I need.
:P
Licensing is a funny old game: recently, I bought 137 MS mice, becuase I could get a free Smartsuite license with a peice of hardware. I then used these to get 137 MS Office licenses via the "competitive upgrade" (or trade in) offer from MS....
Why you'd better try harder!
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
Glad to be living in a society not (yet) completely ruled by megacorporations.
______________
OTTERS RULE.
That's excatly what is happening, you can only install a M$ OS upgrade over a previous version.
Trying to install an upgrade on a clean disk just does not work!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Bad examples; it's more along the lines of building a new roof or foundation on/under your house, it makes the house better but only when you retain the rest of the house.
Or like putting new tires on your car, don't sell the rest of the car.....
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Not "Funny", "Insightful". This highlights the ludicrous nature of the EULA, which (read it!) actually prohibits you from giving the disks away.
Think about that. Microsoft makes sure that your PC comes with a CD that you can't sell or give away. Even throwing it away is dodgy, because it can be picked up and used. If it's stolen and used to install a new OS, you're arguably at fault for failing to secure it, and at a minimum your ability to run your legit version without interference from M$ is at risk (no? Consider Son of WinXP).
All you can safely do is to destroy it.
And yet some people still defend the Microsoft EULA. Astonishing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Now Microsoft is attacking charities and auctioneers???? Is there not anyone who is safe from these people? Next thing you know they will be raiding small towns just for the fun of it.
What irks me even more, then the software shoved down your throat, is the invention of the "recovery disk".
Now, I buy a fairly expensive Dell laptop, which gives me exactly two OS options:
Windoze 98 (or ME or SE, or whatthefuck) &
Windoze 2000
Now, being the corporate type with my own business, I orderer and paied for Windoze 2000, given that I might have to edit customer documentation. Now, you don't get what you pay for you get a pre-installed OS and a recovery-CD, which is rather binary, since it has two options:
Don't use it at all, or
Repartition the whole 20gig hard disk and install that damn sucker excatly the way it has been (without drivers, etc)
Since I absolutely need a dual boot, the CD I paied for is essentially worthless. So, I have to go out an buy a full retail copy of an OS, which I paied for already.
Nowadays Dell states in their ads, that its a recovery CD. They did not at that time.
The postscriptum is, that this is my very last Dell computer. I wrote them a letter, politely pointing out why I think this is a bad policy. They never bothered to even answer with a standard reply.
Since I think it's rude not to reply to a customer, who just invested $5'000.00 (yeah I know, small fish but nevertheless) Dell automatically goes to my "do-not-buy" list. This is also applicable if my business grows and I am a potentially interesting customer.
I know, that it's M$s bulk license requirements. But I still think OEMs are dead wrong to cheat their customers by providing useless OS medias for which the customer pays, just to save them a few bucks on the OS license.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Well, if I were sitting down, you wouldn't hear me properly, would you?
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
Yup, that's a great system, too! I've bought at least 40-50 brand-new paperbacks for .50-$1 each from the local flea market (Sports Arena in San Diego). Gee, they all looked brand new and were only missing the front cover...
"asthetic deterrance"? Sure, to some people. But to me, they're still perfectly readable. I don't keep them, and I save anywhere from $3-$6 per book. Plus, the original dealer gets credit back for not selling them!
What a great system!!
...not that I'm a pirate.. Hell I've never even fired a cannon. - oldwolf13
I think Microsoft has more immediate money-making interests in shutting down auctions on older versions of Windows.
Windows XP Professional, full version, will retail for around $300. The upgrade if I remember correctly goes for around $200. Still pricey, but...
Windows XP can upgrade from either 98 and up or NT 4.0 Workstation and up. Perusing eBay, we find we can pick up a copy of NT 4.0 Workstation for around $20-$40 (complete with non-functioning hardware to make the OEM license transfer legal). So if you get an old copy of NT 4.0 and an upgrade to XP instead of just getting the retail version, you save $60-$80, the guy who sold you the old softare is happy to make some money, and the only real loser here is Microsoft.
I think it's less worrying about license violations as much as Microsoft trying to close a legal price loophole.
Yep. I remember when upgrades were actually trade-ins. Indeed, if software sellers want upgrades to be trade-ins again, they must require the old copies to be part of the payment for the new copies.
The old copy was requested by the new copy's installer, but I won't say it was required to use the new copy. In most cases, no files are actually installed from the old copy and then used in operation of the software. As such, posession of the old copy is not really required in order to run the new copy. Most of these upgrade discs can be used by installing the software manually or by running the provided installer under a debugger and then skipping over the call to the old disk checking routine.
If the upgrade copy can be successfully used without the old version, then then copy of the old version can be sold. In such a case, what the software seller claims is an "upgrade" is actually an entirely seperate and new copy.
The original dealer has incurred liability by breeching their contract with the seller and can be held accountable. The system works exactly as it should.
If any of these books were to become collectors items, your coverless copy would certainly be worth a lot less than a complete one. There's a lot of other drawbacks too. Think of the lack of durability and the constant trouble with pages falling out and getting lost. Also, good luck getting a book in such shabby condition autographed by the author...
Such an argument applies to a real trade-in. It doesn't apply to upgrade software copies unless the original copy is traded in as part of the payment for the a newer copy. For example, when you trade in a car for a newer or better one, which some people might call an upgrade, you give the dealer the old car as part of the payment for the new one. But when you purchase a Windows 3000 upgrade CD at a store, you hand the cashier $100 and they hand you the CD. At no point do you surrender your copies of previous versions of Windows as payment for the new version.
You can make all the arguments in the world about licenses. But the fact stands: You don't need a license to use a copyrighted work. You only need to lawfully possess a copy. This isn't to say that licenses aren't required for some things. For example, large companies often obtain a license to make their own copies of programs instead of buying many copies one at a time.
You have separate in your mind this idea that the delivery media or any physical entity is at all relevant. No - you don't physcially hand over your old "copy" of 98 - but you *do* hand over your right to use it. Its "license to use" that we pay the cash for - not the 50p CD, or worthless manual.
You trade in the cheaper "right to use Win98" for a more expensive item: "right to use XP".
Of course, the car analogy differs in one important respect: depreciation. If MS ever say halved the price of a new OS, then you'd effectively be "trading in" a product of greater value - they'd have to pay you to upgrade
There is implied depreciation I guess, as any product is only worth what someone else will pay you for it. How much will you pay me for my Windows 98 license? Not much I bet.
You are right - the license has little to do with copyright - which deals with the rights of an individual or company to be recognised as the inventor/creator of a work. The licenses are purely "licenses to use" the product, not claim you wrote it.