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.
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.
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.
The reason they are able to use the shrinkwrap license to stop sales is because it hasn't been tested in court. Until someone has the desire, time, and money to take them to court over their enforcement of the shrinkwrap license, and convince the court it is invalid, they can do pretty much whatever they want. Something like this would probably be a multiple-year-long process, through appeals and counter appeals, all the way up to the supreme court. Do you have the desire, time, and money to do this for all of us?
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
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.
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.
"The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft," said Kay.
Carousel is a lie!
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 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
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.
Since they refused to take the return, does the EULA that I did not agree to hold valid?
Fight Spammers!
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
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
Speaking as someone who is in the process of developing a commercial software product, I still must side with the users. The problem is you don't get to see the EULA until AFTER you buy the product. I thoroughly believe that MS or any other company should tell you the terms of the deal BEFORE you give them your money, especially when the terms of the deal go outside of the norm, as is the case here.
Also I really don't see were I would want to stop people from selling my game if they wanted. Obviously they could keep a copy and sell the original which would bother me, but I wouldn't want to punish honest users, especially in MS's case when the honest user has actually paid money for an upgrade so you know he isn't using the software anymore.
Of course I also wouldn't get up in arms if they wanted to install my game on more than one computer, as long as they owned the computers, but most companies today seem to mind that as well. It seems ashame that parents should have to buy two copies of a game if two of their children with two seperate computers both want the game.
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
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
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 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
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.
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 + $5 shipping.
ShoutingMan.com
Microsoft's attacks on ebay extend beyond simple software, to just about anything they produce. Twice this year I have tried to sell a Microsoft Sidewinder joystick, specifically stating that it was just the hardware with NO software. Both times Microsoft had ebay shut the auction down because the M$ 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.
And is the reason nobody can ever get out from under the stranglehold of microsoft these days. Thy *LIKE* that it was pirated in the past. Now all the idiots are locked in, and alternatives are suffering. OS/2 is gone as are many other competitors. Microsoft loves that you guys pirated instead of buying other solutions. Thanks.
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 $200 you pay for a retail copy of Windows gives you the right to duplicate it and sell it to others. But that is ALL copyright is intended to stop - prior to copyright laws it was common for publishers to reprint and sell books published by others, without any compensation to the owner or original publisher. And even that "abuse" wasn't totally unreasonable prior to the development of good distribution channels. (This was done even before canals were first built, when transportation was always extremely expensive because it involved mule trains on muddy roads that where often unpassable.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Responding to recent events on Earth, Bill Gates, the creator of the omniscient Windows, used by billions of computer users worldwide, angrily clarified His license agreement today.
"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again" said Bill, visibly angry.
"Somehow, people keep getting the idea that I don't mind them giving away or reselling copies of Windows. Well, I do mind. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only can you not copy or give away Windows, but you can't resell a copy bought from an OEM. I don't care if you're a school, a charity, or a damn orphanage, the rules apply to you."
"I don't care how poor you are, or how much you need a copy of Windows. If someone tells you I don't mind you making a copy, they're wrong. Got it? I own it all, ok? It's all there in the license agreement. It all belongs to me. You mean nothing to me. You bunch of fucking loosers."
And he sniggered.
Microsoft's biggest competition comes from its own obsolete software. They're not worried that they're losing the profits from a win9x sale, they're worried that you're choosing to use a copy of YAOS (for values of YAOS != M$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
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!"