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
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?"
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.
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.
Remember that you're not buying the software, you're buying a license to use that software. It's the same for most distributed media/services, and it's been like that for a while.
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
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.
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
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
No, they are saying that if the software came pre-installed on your computer you are not allowed to sell it. If you go to the store and buy a boxed copy, you can see it provided you don't have copies and you include the license agreement with it.
At least if I read the article correctly that's the way it works.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
They can do business with whomever they please.
Best Slashdot Co
"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.
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
I've heard this said over and over again, but it's simply not true. You are buying a CD with an installer on it. As long as you obtained that CD legally you have the right to install it on your computer and use it, unless you give up that right some other way. You do not need a license to install and run software, just like you don't need a license to read a book. You only need a license to copy, distribute, or create a derivitive work. While installation involves copying, it is exempted by copyright law as long as you follow certain rules (basically, you have to have purchased the copy legally and cannot install it on more than one computer at a time).
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
Only for the first sale.
After the copyright owner sold one copy, the new owner of that copy can resell it, unless the is bound by other contracts. And the EULA is not a contract, since it was not signed. (I'm not a lawyer, check the ruling for the exact wordening and details. And remember that this was a German court.)
In the US, some courts accepted EULAs as contracts, but IIRC the refund clause was a central point the the courts arguments why it was a valid contract.
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
Not quite right. Copyright is what it states: The right to copy a work of art. This is restricted to a certain juristical entity, which can license it to other people. But it is not about distribution of those copies. That means: If someone buys a truckload of MS-CDs to plaster his walls, then this may be against an EULA, but it is not a violation of the copyright, even it is kind of a distribution.
In Germany there is the Urheberrecht (Author's right), which does basicly the same. The Urheber (better translation is "The final cause"
The Federal Court ruled, that the ownership of even the Urheberrecht doesn't entitle Microsoft to control, how other people handle the licenses, they bought from other sources than Microsoft, as long as they don't violate the Urheberrecht.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
If you believe that copyright infringement is a victimless crime then you are deluding yourself. It is theft, just a surely as is stealing the box from a store-shelf.
NO. Copyright is only a right to control the first distribution channel, as established by the Supreme Court in a case dealing precisely with second-sale of books. The law is (q.v. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/ chapters/2/sections/section_202.html:
or, for a readable-English account of what this means, see http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/copyown/copyown_8.htm"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
So it is technically at least half-right to declaim,
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
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.)
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
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Sorry, but yours is the argument of thieves and fools.
You are stealing the opportunity to make a sale. It is that opportunity of sale that is the fundamental basis of a trade economy, and arguably the basis of civilization: a move beyond nomadic subsistence into communication. I hate to get all philosophical on you, but it really is a question of simple economics.
If you don't even install the software then it's irrelevant - you might as well have a CD with a picture of Schrodinger's Cat on it. But still, if you give or sell that CD to someone else who installs it, then you're conspiring to commit theft.
The real question, though, is: why are you committing a crime by pirating software when you have no use for it? It obviously has a value to you, that's why you do it. And it's that value that you're stealing.
The argument that you couldn't afford it doesn't stick either. You're either too lazy to afford it, or you don't need it.
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.