Microsoft Software for Sale, Slightly Used

Alsee writes "The Register reports that recent UK business Discount-Licensing.com has been having booming growth reselling pre-owned Microsoft software licenses 20-50% below retail, after spotting the opportunity in Microsoft's licensing terms and Britain's insolvency laws for insolvent and downsizing businesses. Sorry, no discount personal OS resales, corporate bulk resales only."

Comments

What a crazy idea!

[IntelliAdmin]

What a crazy idea - the thought that you actually can do what you want with something you purchased. I wonder how long it is before the BSA finds some way of shutting these people down.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[caffeination]

If those are the examples you're using to back up your point, then I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone. And why should consumer rights be subject to the exact same moral conditions as every other facet of society? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a refresher course in criminal vs. civil law would do you good. The examples you named are all crimes. Reselling otherwise completely legal stuff cannot, should not, be bound by a non-binding unilateral civil 'contract'. Oh, and by the way, surely it's a crime to drive a car you own if you're unlicensed. But you can resell it, right ? There goes your strawman..

Re:What a crazy idea!

[ConceptJunkie]

Ummm... comparing the right of First Sale to contributing to the delinquency of a minor... Comparing artificial restictions created by a corporation, which probably aren't enforceable to laws to protect the safety and health of children...

Now there's a cogent argument.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. I've seen a number of giorgiofr's posts in the past few weeks, and he mostly tends to spout nonsensical sociopolitical gibberish. He's sort of the Euro-dada21, except dada is much more coherent in his thoughts.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, but I'll stay out of anything personal. (ticking Post Anonymously too)

Re:What a crazy idea!

[hey!]

What a crazy idea - the thought that you actually can do what you want with something you purchased.

Well, it would be, if Microsoft sold sofware.

Which they don't.

Whether you think i's a good idea for society or not, they sell licenses. A license by its very nature is more ambiguous than ownership, because it is, at its heart, an agreed upon, ungoing relationship between the licensee and licensor.

So, what is going on here is something a bit extraordinary. It's saying that licensees have in certain cirumstances the ability to transfer their relationship with the licensor to a third party, without the licensor's consent.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[giorgiofr]

Thanks for taking the time to read and understand thoroughly what I wrote, and for insulting me while reinforcing my very same idea. Which was to *refuse* this idea of there being a Greater Good.
Oh and fuck you too. Have a nice day, dumbass.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[aplusjimages]

Does M$ ever see any cheddar from this transaction, like they would on the first sale of a license? So aren't we getting ripped off by this company? Shouldn't they be selling the licenses for way less, like 50-75% off instead of 25-50%?

Re:What a crazy idea!

[ajs318]

It's quite legal to give alcohol to a minor, if you are in loco parentis and not on licenced premises ..... though if the recipient is under five years old, it has to be part of a prescribed or prepacked medicine. Likewise, it is entirely legal to drive a car without a driving licence, as long as you are not actually on the Queen's Highway and not breaking any other law. You can even legally drive a car with no tax disc, MOT {roadworthiness test}, and only a provisional licence and no accompanying driver ..... as long as you intend to attend an MOT test, get a tax disc with the MOT certificate, and take a driving test in the now taxed-and-ticketed car, all on the same day. Besides which, if stopped, you always have seven days' grace in which to produce your documents at a police station.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Bloke down the pub]

Whether you think i's a good idea for society or not, they sell licenses. A license by its very nature is more ambiguous than ownership, because it is, at its heart, an agreed upon, ungoing relationship between the licensee and licensor.

Beh. They may claim they sell licenses, and that you only rent the software from them. But if a court decides that's just a loophole and in fact they sell software, and after you've bought it then you own it, then that's how it is.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Martin Blank]

It's quite legal to drive a car you own even without a license, provided you do so only on private land. You can own a truck on a farm and drive it around on that without having a license so long as you never drive it on the public road running next to the land.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Hognoxious]

You can even legally drive a car with no tax disc, MOT {roadworthiness test}, and only a provisional licence and no accompanying driver ..... as long as you intend to attend an MOT test, get a tax disc with the MOT certificate, and take a driving test in the now taxed-and-ticketed car, all on the same day.

The MOT & tax you might get away with once, if you have a pre-booked appointment at the garage. But being alowed to drive, unaccompanied, to the driving test location is bullshit.

Seven days grace is bullshit too, it's seven days to show the documents, but they must be valid for the date you were stopped.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[ehrichweiss]

There's really absolutely nothing extraordinary about this at all. At least here in the States, "shrinkwrap licensing" doesn't hold water in the higher courts and the only real way to keep someone from selling their software is by signed agreement.

SGI has for years sold software under a license where you physically sign an agreement to purchase, and the license forbids resale of the software without express permission of Silicon Graphics. The thing is, they have the attitude toward their media that most of us wish that the record/movie companies had toward CD/DVD's..if it gets damaged, lost, stolen, etc. then they replace it for free...usually overnight Fedex. But that was back in the day, I'm unsure if they still do this now.

Anyway, I'm glad to see someone do this with the corporate licenses; it's about damn time.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[loshwomp]

SGI has for years sold software under a license where you physically sign an agreement to purchase, and the license forbids resale of the software without express permission of Silicon Graphics.

And that strategy seems to be working really well for them.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[DavidTC]

While it is perfectly valid to point out that they're trying to charge the terms after the point of sale on purchased-in-stores software, this article is about business licenses, which, I assure you, are licenses. The company sits down with MS and hammers out an agreement, and then they both sign it.

No one walked into a store and out with a box, it's not an install EULA, or even a shrinkwrap license, and I have no problem with MS trying to keep people from reselling them. They are almost always company or site licenses, or at the leaat have deep discounts. MS has no problem getting paid half price for each license if you'll go ahead and buy 50 at a time. Letting companies break those apart and sell each one is rightly objected to.

OTOH, bankruptcy laws apparently allow this, so I don't see what MS can do. Instead of objecting to this practice entirely, I suggest they object to any alteration of the terms. If it was a site license for 50 computers, by god it's still a site license for 50 computer. You can't break it up or use it at more sites.

No, this isn't the same thing as OEM licenses, which can be resold, no matter what MS says. Yes, they are bought at a discount, but the important thing there is that they are then sold to individuals who didn't agree to any special terms during the purchase, and thus the Right of First Sale is in effect. (Because EULAs are complete gibberish, and it's even more gibberish than usual to try to apply them when people aren't running the software.)

Of course, MS is free to ban reselling OEM licenses to end users, but that makes no sense.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, becuase consistency between all facets of society is to much SANITY for a Corporate Capitalist Society.

This has nothing to do with morals. This is ethics of licensing, the consumer supplier relationship, and the Free Market.

Morality is IRRELEVANT when it involves BUSINESS!
Ethics in Business is determined by the Business itself, not the Industry Whole!!

BUSINESS ======= MONEY, GOV. REGULATION, LAW, && SURVIVAL of the FITTEST

/sarcasm filter at .5

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Antony T Curtis]

SGI wasn't the only vendor who replaced damaged media...

When one of the install diskettes for Lotus 1-2-3 became unreadable, all I had to do was post the damaged floppy to Lotus with sufficient return postage and they sent a replacement back.

At the time, this seemed perfectly normal - lots of vendors did that kind of thing.

And software came with *real* manuals, sometimes ring-bound, often spiral-bound. Written in English and actually *useful*.

And tech support was worth calling when you have a problem - and you didn't get some snot-nosed dork who was reading from a script.

I'll stop my rant now.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Bogtha]

Whether you think i's a good idea for society or not, they sell licenses.

When you walk into a shop, pick a box off the shelf and pay for it, does it say "Windows" on it, or does it say "A license for Windows" on it? When you see adverts for computers in magazines, does it say that they come with Windows, or does it say that they come with a license for Windows?

If Microsoft aren't selling Windows, then millions of people around the world have not got what they legitimately paid for and have been defrauded.

If you bought a television set, brought it home, and then found out you weren't allowed to resell it because Sony didn't actually sell you the TV set, but merely permission to use it, then you'd think that was nonsense, wouldn't you? There is no difference here. Copyright is not property, it's a temporary restriction on some types of unauthorised copying. That copy of Windows you bought is your property, not Microsoft's, the fact that Microsoft hold the copyright on Windows doesn't change that. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to sell it.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[ajs318]

You are allowed {or at least were, until recently, but I am not aware of any change in the law regarding this} to drive unaccompanied to a driving test, or home from the test if you failed. If you didn't have to go out of your way to get to the garage and post office, you could stop off on the way to get the MOT and tax. The driving test examiner, for their own part, is entitled to check your vehicle and documents to make sure that the vehicle is in fit and proper condition and correctly taxed and insured. If they do not believe that the vehicle is suitable, they can refuse to go on with the test and fail you on the spot with no refund.

Most people just take the test in their driving instructor's car. Urban folklore suggests that one is more likely to pass in a driving school car than in one's own car.

Obviously the documents you produce at the police station have to have actually been valid {or not necessary; as in, the purpose of your journey was directly related to obtaining the relevant documents in the first place and you were not travelling any further than strictly necessary} at the time when you were stopped. An MOT issued a few hours later in the immediate vicinity would tend to suggest that the purpose of the trip was indeed to obtain an MOT certificate, which the tax disc would corroborate.

Still, if you did actually try this, you would most probably send the officer's smart-arse detector off the scale. Annoying the police is never a good idea, and especially not if you are actually in the right. You might get taken down to the nick for "processing" and be forced to miss your driving test. Again, no refund, though you could sue the police to get back the cost of the test. If you had a death-wish or something.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[xero314]

Oh, and by the way, surely it's a crime to drive a car you own if you're unlicensed. But you can resell it, right ?

You are mixing apples and oranges. The article is about lincensing not purchasing. If you change the word "own" to the word "lease" in your analogy you will have a more accurat comparison. You will also see the answer to your question changes from yes to no.

Licensing is not owning. Contracts or not only allowed, but critical to a Free Market economy.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Sparr0]

Let me direct you to one of my favorite Sale vs License rulings, Adobe v Softman. Relevant excerpts follow:

A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670, 676 (3d Cir. 1991); Step-Saver, 929 F.2d at 99-100; Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp., 929 F.2d 1147, 1150 (6th Cir. 1991). It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange. ...

Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. See, e.g., RRX Indus., Inc. v. Lab-Con Inc., 772 F.2d 543, 546 (9th Cir. 1985); Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart, 976 Supp. 149, 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) finding that whether a transaction denominated a "license" was in act a sale conveying ownership was a disputed question of fact); Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In Novell, a software manufacturer was pursuing a discount retailer for copyright infringement. Like Adobe, CPU argued that it purchased the software from an authorized source, and was entitled to resell it under the first sale doctrine. Novell claimed that it did not sell software but merely licensed it to distribution partners. The court held that these transactions constituted sales and not a license, and therefore that the first sale doctrine applied. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 at *18. ...

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.12 ...

The reality of the business environment also suggests that Adobe sells its software to distributors. Adobe transfers large amounts of merchandise to distributors. The distributors pay full value for the merchandise and accept the risk that the software may be damaged or lost.13 The distributors also accept the risk that they will be unable to resell the product.14 The distributors then resell the product to other distributors in the secondary market. The secondary market and the ultimate consumer also pay full value for the product, and accept the risk that the product may be lost or damaged. This evidence suggests a transfer of title in the good. The transfer of a product for consideration with a transfer of title and risk of loss generally constitutes a sale. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 1999). ...

[signed]
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

*applause*

Re:What a crazy idea!

[M-G]

So, what is going on here is something a bit extraordinary. It's saying that licensees have in certain cirumstances the ability to transfer their relationship with the licensor to a third party, without the licensor's consent.

No, it's not. It's using terms in the license that allow the licensee to transfer the license. The featured company is acting as a broker, matching interested parties, and they use MS's own forms to do the transfer.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters, I think it's good to force assignability of software licenses.

However, you're missing the distinction between shrinkwrap licensing and everything else. Yes, the legal effect of shrinkwrap licensing is questionable. However, there's nothing preventing two parties from entering into a software licensing contract where party A contracts to allow only party B to use the software. That contract, like all others, would and should be honored by the court. And compare leases: many of them forbid leasees from assigning the lease to a 3rd party without consent of the lessor (though courts typically require that the lessor have good reason for refusing to consent to the assignment).

The point being, these businesses are entering into regular contracts, not going to Wal-mart and buying 50,000 boxes with Windows CDs inside them. Court imposed assignabiliy, directly in contravention of the terms of the license, is a fairly significant measure.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

So companies that convert away from Microsoft to some other software infrastructure can turn their licences into cash? Nice!

Re:What a crazy idea!

[esmrg]

No, they sell licenses. Yes, the retail version does include a copy of the software on CD, but what you are actually purchasing is the little sticker with a key on it. In fact, microsoft doesn't care how many times you copy the disc, as long as you purchase a sticker for every machine. OEM's do this. They buy a huge reel of XP stickers (each one a home PC license) and burn XP on recordable discs from a master iso. The CD you bought in retail is yours, but the software (the windows) is not. You use and update the software with permission from microsoft. That is because they want it that way, and windows requries constant updates. When software goes legacy it is more like the TV. It is an unmaintained, static product.
Also, to note, microsoft uses a different salt for the key for each type of market. An OEM key won't work with a retail CD and vice versa.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Bogtha]

No, they sell licenses.

I think you missed my point. You walk into a shop. You pick up a box that says "Windows" on it. You bring it to the counter. You give them money for the box that says "Windows" on it. They take your money. You walk out of the shop with what you have just bought, a copy of Windows.

How is that not buying a copy of Windows? Why do you think that it's in any way legal for Microsoft to turn around after the sale and say that no, you haven't actually bought what you have just paid money for?

Re:What a crazy idea!

[esmrg]

Because of this:
The End-User Licence Agreement

Re:What a crazy idea!

[kimvette]

I wish I had mod points today. . .

I've been saying that for a while now - courts have been pretty clear since the first cases involving such things (software and media); if it's sold as a commodity item, right of first sale applies. You OWN it and you can resell it, rent it, give it away, shred it, make backup copies in accordance with Fair Use (but if the original changes hand the backups must accompany them or be destroyed), and so forth.

Volume licensing is a contract - you don't buy commodity items when you enter those products, you buy services, one of which is allowing you, for the duration of the contract, to use the software. Transfer of such contracts is a complicated matter (e.g., company foo buys out company bar, lawyers get rich hammering out amendments to contracts for the transfer). Much different than going to Sprawl*Mart and buying commodity goods off the shelf.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[aslate]

It's called misleading advertising. You buy a PC and it says "Comes with Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition", you see an advert for Windows it says "Buy Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition now for only £129.99" and so on. They don't say "Buy a licence for..." or anything like that, it's only till you take it home and install it you find it's a "licence".

If PC World can get attacked by the ASA for "misleading advertising" by using the phrase "Connect to the net anywhere with the builtin wireless technology", can't sell a product called "Champagne" or "Parma Ham" when it's not from the defined areas for that name, you shouldn't be able to "sell" Windows, but you should sell "A licence for Windows...".

Re:What a crazy idea!

[esmrg]

Yep.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[arkhan_jg]

It's no more a licence than when I go into a bookstore, put down some cash, and get a book. Copyright law prevents me photocopying that book and giving away the copies, or replacing the cover and pretending I'm the author, or put it up for rent (along with a couple of other things) - but importantly, under first sale doctrine it's mine to do as I wish afterwards, including defacing or reselling it.

If it's a business contract, such as software assurance, where I pay a continuing fee to the software holder for periodic new versions of the software, and we both sign such a contract, that's different.

If it's sold in a shop (in a box or on a computer) for a one-time fee, with no contract signed prior to the purchase, it's a sale, just like any other sale of a copy of a copyrighted work, and subject to first sale doctrine. That has been upheld in many different court cases.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[mellon]

Indeed, the fact that software vendors typically will not send you replacement media if your media is lost, without charging you for a full additional license, also suggests that the value is in the media, not in the license.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Alsee]

When we're talking about an ordinary consumer going into a store and buying a normal box of software to install on a single machine, I am with you 100%. Copyright law explicitly says that you do not need any sort of copyright license to install and run software on a disk you bought, and thus do *not* need to agree to any EULA that they offer. You can decline the EULA and install and use the software.

HOWEVER...

In this particular case, in this particular story, is one of those very rare times where we really *are* talking about buying a copyright license. What is being bought and sold in this particular case is a copyright license to install 2 to 20,000 machines from a single disk. It is effectivly a copyright license to create from 1 to 19,999 new copies, rather than simply installing and using the single one you purchaced.

So great post and I'm entirely on your side.... and I really hate the fact that I have to say that in this particular case you're wrong. Heh :)

-

Re:What a crazy idea!

[bigpicture]

That licensee concept that you describe may be according to the US Big Business bought laws. But UK and EU laws are leaning more toward the consumers, who in a real democracy are the actual voters. (you know "for the people, by the people") In the US it is only capitalism and fascism pretending to be a democracy, basically a masquerade.

Bill Gates said that Linux is communism, another lie, if the truth be known it is licensing that is more like communism, because it presumes that there cannot be individual ownership. Whereas democracy and capitalism, have individual ownership as the central tenet.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[ehrichweiss]

Nice strawman. If you did a bit of research, you'd know that strategy had absolutely nothing to do with their current financial situation.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[Bloke down the pub]

The company sits down with MS and hammers out an agreement, and then they both sign it.

And the only thing they negotiate is "how much?". How many include access to the source, for example? Just because it's a B to B transaction rather than B to C doesn't mean a court can't override the contract, deem one of the terms unfair or non-enforceable etc etc...

Re:What a crazy idea!

[DavidTC]

That's not my point. My point is, no matter how valid or invalid you think EULAs banning resell and whatnot are, and I'm with the camp that says 'Not at all'...this isn't that. They're real contracts.

As to what extent a company can sell asserts in bankruptcy, including things it otherwise couldn't sell, that is, indeed, up to the courts. I'm just saying that MS looks idiotic protesting to any resells...what it should be protesting is any alternation of the licensing beyond replacing one company name with another, because that's a much more valid complaint.

Here's how they will "fix" this

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft will start putting a non-transferability clause in license agreements. Simple as that. US Bankruptcy law may or may not create an out for such a clause, so that a trustee can sell a debtor's licences. If the law allows it and if it causes a drain on sales revenue, you can bet that there will be another anti-consumer amendment to the bankruptcy code.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[ajs318]

Three words: "Exhaustion of Rights".

In the UK at least, once you sell something -- even something nebulous like a licence to do something the Law of the Land already gives you the right to do -- then it is no longer your property and you lose control of it.

They can put a clause in the licence that apparently forbids transfer of licences; but UK law gives you the right to transfer licences. And a promise not to exercise a statutory right is worthless, so invoking the "severability" clause found in almost every EULA. If there is no severability clause, then the whole EULA is null and void.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[BadAnalogyGuy]

So if the license says you can't transfer it, you can still transfer it?

Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want? Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?

Are you a lawyer?

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy (what a surprise)

Breach of copyright is what you're suggesting - totally different issue, and still illegal, yes.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[m50d]

So if the license says you can't transfer it, you can still transfer it?

Yes

Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?

No, because copyright law prevents that.

Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?

Licenses are useful for one thing only - making exceptions to your copyright. Any other terms are meaningless.

Are you a lawyer?Not yet

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Surely making copies for my own computers isn't in breach of copyright. I know I can't redistribute the copies to anyone, and I'm not suggesting that at all. However I am suggesting that if I am not bound by the license terms then I am not restricted from making as many copies of the media as I like and using those copies for my own private use in any way I see fit. I am only restricted because of the terms of the license.

Unless I'm not understanding some weird UK-style legal mumbo jumbo that doesn't allow you to make copies for private use. God knows you guys have totally screwed up what was once a beautiful language (English).

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[ajs318]

So if the license says you can't transfer it, you can still transfer it?

Yes, because the Law of the Land says you may transfer a licence -- and rights given to you by the Law of the Land cannot be denied to you by entering into a contract. That's what the magic words "Your statutory rights are not affected" mean. It's also the reason why EULAs have a severability clause; that's the bit that says if any provision is found not to be applicable it shall not prejudice any other provision.

Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?

No, because the Law of the Land does not say you may install it as many times as you want. Though, you might argue in court that this constituted Fair Dealing {a deliberately ambiguous term: it is for the courts to decide what does or does not constitute fair dealing}. If you were successful, you would set a precedent.

Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?

Pretty much so, yes.

Are you a lawyer?

No, but I know my rights.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[m50d]

Unless I'm not understanding some weird UK-style legal mumbo jumbo that doesn't allow you to make copies for private use. God knows you guys have totally screwed up what was once a beautiful language (English).

I'm pretty sure there's no entitlement to do this. There are a few general copyright exceptions - "copies necessary for the intended use of the work" and "transitory copies the sole purpose of which is an otherwise legal use of the work" are those which spring to mind - but nothing like as extensive as "fair use" in the US

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?"

If you are a consumer in the European Union, the answer probably is "yes".

The logic behind this is that consumers never acquire a license because there is no mutual agreement between the producer of the software and the consumer. Instead, a consumer walks into a shop and asks a third party "Do you sell product X?". The shop answers "yes", and a sale is made.

For companies, things are different; companies can be expected to know that software often is not really sold

Of course, this issue is hotly debated, and some of the parties interested in changing this have deep pockets.

And no, I am not a lawyer.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[Anonymous Coward]

>>It's also the reason why EULAs have a severability clause; that's the bit that says if any provision is found not to be applicable it shall not prejudice any other provision.

IAAL. A severability clause has nothing to do with the fact that contractual relationships sometimes(!) cannot circumvent statutory rights. What the clause does is prevent the entire contract from becoming void due to the fact that one part may be void. (Many legal systems have this concept).

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you go to law school but it just doesn't work that way.

>> Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?

>>>>No, because copyright law prevents that.

Untrue, or rather imprecise. Copyright law primarily upholds licensing agreements. The licensing agreement may say you can install it on 100 machines. The only part of the license agreement that flies in the face of IP right is the clause relating to non-transferability.

>> Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?

>>>Licenses are useful for one thing only - making exceptions to your >>>copyright. Any other terms are meaningless.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Licenses are useful for tons of things, depending on the interests of the parties etc. Your understanding of the relationship of licensing agreements to statutory IP rights is incorrect. The former is not an annex of the latter.

>>Are you a lawyer?Not yet

no comment

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[DavidTC]

Huh?

You can make backup copies of software media in both the US and the UK. Yes, as many as you want, despite the common misparsing of the law to mean 'a backup copy', and the EULAs that have codified this misreading into themselves. (It actually says a copy is legal if it's a backup copy. As would another be, and yet another. Every copy that is a backup copy is legal.)

And you can't be restricted during the install from making a backup copy, that's just completely idiotic. How would they know you made the copies after the install?

I don't know what you're implying about 'using' the copies all you want. If by 'using', you mean 'viewing the binary code on my computer in a hex editor' or 'attempting to play in my CD player', yes, you can, using a single backup copy at once.

If, however, by 'use', you mean 'install onto a computer', no, you can't. You can only make whatever copies are 'needed' to run it. That is, needed to run it on the machine you are running it on. You can't have copies that aren't needed to run it, and that includes installs on other machines.

It is, sadly, a common misconception that it's legal to install as many copies as you want as long as you only use one of them. That was true when software was on floppies, and you could make backups. It was legal to have as many of those as you want, sitting by as many computers as you want, as long as you only used one of them.

Copyright law, sadly, has no kept up with advances in technology, and makes no distinction between 'Copies installed on the hard drive' and 'copies executing in memory'. You can only make them if it is needed for you, right now, to use the program. As you can't legally use a program on two computers at once, any copies on the 'non-used' computer are not legal. (Except, heh, backup copies, which are legal under another law. And system recovery copies, also legal.)

OTOH, 'needed' is a somewhat loose concept. It pretty clearly allows network installs of application software if you only run it on one computer at once.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't one case of a clause being found void be that the clause is not legally binding due to it circumventing a statutory right? That doesn't preclude there being other possible situations a severability clause needs to cover.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[ajs318]

Wouldn't the fact of not being allowed to give up your statutory rights just because a contract asked you to, be enough to make part of the contract void, requiring a severability clause to prevent the rest becoming void? But I agree with you, there may be some other factor which voids a part of the agreement, something which I didn't make clear.

I think in some jurisdictions contracts may be automatically severable anyway, but this is arse-covering for the rest of the world.

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[m50d]

Untrue, or rather imprecise. Copyright law primarily upholds licensing agreements. The licensing agreement may say you can install it on 100 machines.

Correct as stated. Copyright law prevents you doing that unless you have a license allowing you to do so.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Licenses are useful for tons of things, depending on the interests of the parties etc. Your understanding of the relationship of licensing agreements to statutory IP rights is incorrect. The former is not an annex of the latter.

A license is a set of exemptions to your copyright. Sometimes you will obtain one through a contract, but that is not and should not be confused with the license itself. And going back to the original issue of the windows "EULA", it cannot be the latter for a variety of reasons, the only valid provisions it can make are (unilateral grants of) the former.

What a crazy idea!-The Leaning Forum of "/."

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder how long it is before the BSA finds some way of shutting these people down."

And if they don't, you'll never hear about it on this forum.

This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

From TFA: "The secondhand resale of a license agreement is not the intended purpose of these provisions."

Apparently, a Microsoft rep said that to the article writer.

Something tells me that Windows Vista and future versions of Office, etc. will probably restrict their licenses somehow to prevent this. Some company had "net saving in the region of £10,000." That means Microsoft probably lost a lot more than that.

Too bad they won't sell to individuals; I might actually purchase a Microsoft product if I could just download it from P2P and go buy a cheap license from these guys. Even better, someone should go start collecting unused Windows licenses and giving them away to those who need them, like college students (okay, just kidding).

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[mjmartin_uk]

Ahhh but you forget that UK law would prohibit this (the forceable non-resale of a licence agreement). In the UK you can legally resell your copy of Windows, with the licence agreement, even if it is an OEM copy and was intended to be used (as Microsoft says) 'only on new computers'.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Ironsides]

Something tells me that Windows Vista and future versions of Office, etc. will probably restrict their licenses somehow to prevent this. Some company had "net saving in the region of £10,000." That means Microsoft probably lost a lot more than that.

Microsoft didn't "lose" any money on this sale, neither did they "make" any money. This is similar to me buying the Monopoly(tm) board game at a garage sale. Parker Brothers neither lost nor made any money on the deal.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

So MS can't do anything about it? Well, that makes me feel a little warmer inside. :) I live in the US; I wish we could resell OEM licenses... I never thought it would be a problem since I build my own computers, but then I bought a ThinkPad. I kept Windows on it just because it's more power-friendly than Linux is (or was when I bought it) but it still bothers me that I don't have a choice and am stuck with it.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

Microsoft didn't "lose" any money on this sale, neither did they "make" any money.

You're right, Microsoft didn't lose money per se. However, Microsoft did lose a fairly substantial potential business because of this.

This is similar to me buying the Monopoly(tm) board game at a garage sale. Parker Brothers neither lost nor made any money on the deal.

Perhaps Parker Brothers should put some kind of license agreement in their board games that prohibits resale of Monopoly. This is of course, the move Microsoft is going to be making soon. (And already has, as in the case of OEM licenses.)

Personally I think the idea of a license agreement forcing non-resale is ridiculous. Its similiar to DRM: some company telling me what I can and can't do with something once I've purchased it. Feh.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

I see what you're saying... for instance, I have no problem illegally copying music because I wouldn't have bought it to begin with, therefore the record company didn't lose my sales.

Companies are different; they are taking a huge risk by illegally copying the software they use. As in my quote, one company saved £10,000; had the used license reseller not offered them cheaper licenses, they would have had to buy legit first-hand retail versions, and MS would have made the money.

In essence, because of what this used license reseller is doing, MS lost a significant amount of money. Not only did they lose the £10,000 that the company saved; they didn't make anything, as you pointed out.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[jackbird]

...and I robbed GM when I bought a used car.

Remember, the licenses aren't copyable the way music/software is, so the doctrine of first sale isn't even a grey area in this case.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

Software makers (Microsoft) would have you think that you did indeed rob GM when you bought a used car.

Remember also, cars wear out and die; a used software license installs and works perfectly every time. The CD might wear out, of course, but that's not what you paid for (that's why backing up any piece of media should always be legal... you didn't pay $300.00 for a $0.03 piece of plastic, you bought the numbers recorded on it).

You could argue that software goes obsolete; but the company that saved all that money that I was referring to bought older licenses of Office XP, which isn't the newest Office. They would have bought new licenses to Office XP from MS, but instead bought used ones. No matter which way you cut it, MS lost a sale, a potentially high value sale. I don't know of anywhere else you can go to buy used licenses to MS software in bulk.

I don't believe software makers should have the right to this "forced non-resale" licensing; I'm just pointing out that it's costing MS a lot of money, and if they can stop it (which it sounds like they can't, even in the US) they would love to do so.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[jackbird]

We agree about what should be done, but your evaluation of Microsoft's accounting is dead wrong. It's only costing them money in bizarro world. They lost a sale, yes, but losing and gaining sales is how capitalism is supposed to work. You know, competition and all that. Windows licenses are a commodity, and the market does not believe they are worth what Microsoft wants to charge.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Something tells me that Windows Vista and future versions of Office, etc. will probably restrict their licenses somehow to prevent this."

XP already does it with its activation scheme. Heck, my dad had to call Microsoft to get XP reactivated after he upgraded a couple of components in his computer.

Okay, that's a bit harsh, maybe it won't PREVENT resale, but it sure makes it more difficult. It'll be a sad day when I'm forced to 'upgrade' from Win2k.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

Then how come every time customers don't walk in the door where I work my boss tells me he's losing money?

I'll agree to look at it your way, that even though companies have always had to purchase their bulk MS software directly from MS or one of its licensed vendors and now, for the first time ever, they don't, they aren't losing any money because of this. I'm sure that's how MS looks at it as well; "it's no bother, we're not losing anything..."

I wasn't trying to say that this company is stealing money from MS or that somehow existing sales were being revoked... I thought I was being clear, here - MS doesn't like this, and they'd love to stop it if they could, since, like you say, they're losing "sales" (whcih I made the terrible mistake of referring to as "money").

I also wasn't trying to imply that there's some magic, grand business scheme where you don't lose any sales, ever. MS loses sales for lots of reasons all the time; like you say, that's capitalism. This is just a new one; that in it's own right is interesting (and in my case, heart-warming).

?!

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[jackbird]

Fair enough. "losing sales" != "losing money," and we agree.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Ansonmont]

I love that Parker Brothers has a monopoly on the Monopoly(R) brand of board games...
-A

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Ansonmont]

I am in sales. Microsoft lost a potential sale, not an actual sale. You have to leave the possibility that the company would have decided NOT to buy the new MS licenses if they had to pay the extra $10K.

-A

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[failedlogic]

I see where the logic is going with this and I agree, somewhat. A reply to this thread gives the example of buying a used Ford.

I see software as being different. Whereas Ford has the -potential- of making money even from someone who bought a used car (e.g. spare parts, repairs) assuming they go to a Ford dealer, MS provides for free patches to its OS. So no income unless you make many support calls. So if you've paid nothing for it to MS, they still have to pay bandwidth to let you download the updates. This assumes, of course, that the software still has patches still availble.

For Windows 98 the patches don't amount to many MB. But for 2000, XP and 2003, the patches are several hundred MBs. Even when the support expires on all licences, the patches are still available for download.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Penguinoflight]

Thats not actually correct. When you buy Monopoly, you are enforcing Parker Brothers market dominance, and adding to the original value of their product. If I know that I can sell monopoly for $2 after playing it for 5 years, it is worth $2 more than if I cannot sell it.

From another perspective, if the person who previously bought a parker brothers product has spare spending money, they will be somewhat more likely to buy another parker brothers product (this last one is influenced highly by the satisfaction of the customer).

So basically from customers making these sales, Microsofts product now has a higher value. Considering that most of the licences being sold are not the same license that microsoft is selling now (e.g., selling 2k for xp upgrade), the offering does not lower demand for the new product, and there is an overall increase in demand.

If Microsoft is smart about this, they will increase prices of their new products rather than try to shut down another "racket".

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Scarletdown]

Some company had "net saving in the region of £10,000." That means Microsoft probably lost a lot more than that.

Microsoft didn't lose anything. They made their money from the original sale of those licenses which were then resold. That would be like claiming nVidia would be losing whatever the current retail value is of the used GeForce card that I may sell, since I have replaced it with a new one. They made their money off it already.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Scarletdown]

It'll be a sad day when I'm forced to 'upgrade' from Win2k

Aw, it isn't that bad. A couple years ago, I was finally forced to upgrade my primary system from Windows 98SE Lite (that's 98SE with IE totally stripped out), because for some reason, the OS would go into seizures when there was more than one DIMM installed in the motherboard.

The upgrade was fairly painless. I went to Knoppix, then Mepis, and finally settled on pure Debian Sid. Haven't had any major problems with that system ever since then (other than getting rooted once because I was doing some experimenting and forgot to turn the firewall back on. That was when I went from Mepis to Debian, come to think of it.) ;)

Forced upgrades aren't necessarily bad things depending on what upgrade path you take.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

So where were you going to go to buy bulk licenses for MS' software? eBay? This company was already willing to shell out tens of thousands for a bunch of licenses to a five year old release of Office. I'm guessing if these bulk license resellers weren't starting to turn up (this one started in Nov. 2005), they would have had to go to Microsoft. Therefore, MS lost a sale (and thus money). Everyone keeps saying they didn't lose anything... and, again, I'm sure that's how MS looks at it too. They probably aren't even thinking about it, right? They're not losing anything at all...

...right?

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

even if they did restrict their licenses, these restrictions wouldnt apply in the UK without a change of law.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[DavidTC]

Ah, no, MS's patches are usually for defects, often serious. Ford will not only replace serious defects for free, but track you do if they can, even if you are not the original owner of the car.

Don't start comparing the software industry to the automobile industry. Ford will win every time. ;)

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[DavidTC]

The is not such object as a 'sale', and it is not worth any money. MS does not a warehouse full of 'sales' sitting around, and misplaced one of them.

Do not talk about abstract nouns as if they were real.

If we're going to get all abstract, I'll say that giving MS any money is evil, thus can result in the losing of your soul. And a soul is infinitely more valuable than a sale. Traditionally, the market value of a soul has been 'Your every wish fulfilled', at least if you do business with Hell, Inc, and that's a good deal more than the purchase price of Windows.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[MobyDisk]

Your mistake is that he didn't copy the Monopoly board game. He re-sold it, so he no longer has it.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

You have to leave the possibility that the company would have decided NOT to buy the new MS licenses if they had to pay the extra $10K.

Nobody's talking about MS losing that one sale; I'm talking about the used license reseller as a whole, meaning their entire customer base. One customer saved over $60,000 (according to TFA). Are you saying MS isn't losing anything to this used license reseller? Are you assuming that every, single company that buys a used license would have gone with Lotus notes or something if there was no cheaper way to get Office? And, if you do, do you think that's how Bill Gates & friends look at it? Since MS (according to TFA) obviously didn't intend for their licenses to be distributed this way.

I realize in the UK, and possibly in the US, there is probably nothing they can do about it. That doesn't mean MS likes it and wouldn't sue the crap out of this reseller if they could. That was my only point.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[gameforge]

No, I meant exactly what I said. If I'm at a garage sale & happen to see Monopoly for a dollar, I might buy it. That doesn't mean I would have gone to the store and purchased it had I not seen it at the garage sale; therefore Parker Bros. didn't lose anything - either way, I wouldn't buy it new. Just like when you pirate music that you wouldn't have purchased anyway, record company & friends isn't losing anything; I woudln't have bought it either way. Hence my post.

I can't assume that about all of discount-license.com's customers; I have to assume a few of them would have bought new from MS if they couldn't buy a used license. Perhaps you really believe that not a single one of them would have; that's a silly thing to assume IMO. At least one of them would have shelled out for new, MS software. If it was the customer that saved over $60k, then MS lost at least a $120k sale, more if they got less than a 50% discount on it.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Forced upgrades aren't necessarily bad things depending on what upgrade path you take."

Maybe not for all, but the software I use to make a living is not available on Linux. I'm stuck with Windows. POTENTIALLY I could go to Mac, which is an option I need to keep open.

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[Darby]

That doesn't mean MS likes it and wouldn't sue the crap out of this reseller if they could. That was my only point.

If your whole point is that MS is a sleazy corporation that would look first to using the laws against the public at every opportunity rather than coming up with a way to actually provide value worth paying for new and you think you're actually coming up with a point, then you really are new here ;-)

Re:This probably won't last for very long.

[pimpimpim]

yeah, but even then, maybe even parker brothers might start doing that. It's just harder to implement this ARM (Analog Rights Management).

Personal possession of goods that are part of a company's Intellectual Property is so 20th century, who does that nowadays? Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I get the impression that "buying" is seen more and more as "buying a restricted license" instead of "buying" mean to "obtain complete possession over the bought goods, and allowing you to do what you want with it".

This is legal in the US too

[Anonymous Coward]

This is legal in the US too. And protected under the "Doctrine of First Sale", much as the software companies would like it didn't exist.

"US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

"Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA)."

but if it's licensed then one should be allowed to make backups of the disc or receive a replacement disc if the disc gets lost or damaged. Software companies will argue either way where it suits them.

they can't have the cake and eat it. It's either or

Re:This is legal in the US too

[ChristTrekker]

The exact same argument applies to the media (**AA) corps too (IMHO, IANAL). If I'm licensed to watch/hear your product, then replacing the physical medium or getting it in a different format should be a very nominal (pennies!) charge since I can show that I've got a license for the product. If I'm buying a copy of the product for my own, then how do they have any right to restrict what I do with my copy for my own use?

Re:This is legal in the US too

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

they have certain rights under copyright law, which says you can't produce copies, but they have no right to tell you that you cant sell your original copy.

Re:This is legal in the US too

[Joe5678]

but if it's licensed then one should be allowed to make backups of the disc or receive a replacement disc if the disc gets lost or damaged. Software companies will argue either way where it suits them.

For Microsoft licensing you can get replacements, not for free, the media kits are normally around $10-$20.

Re:This is legal in the US too

[deblau]

Let's be careful to dissect the different rights granted to a copyright holder.

Here is the distribution right:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . . to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. 17 U.S.C. 106(3).

Here is first sale doctrine:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. 17 U.S.C. 109(a).

Note that section 109 uses the word "owner" -- the one who controls title. The law makes a distinction between owning a CD (as plastic), and owning the music or software on that CD (as bits). In order to invoke first sale doctrine, you have to own the copy of the software, or be authorized. Now let's have a look at a typical MSFT EULA:

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.
(MSFT retains ownership of the software)

13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. . . . Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, 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 Software must agree to all the EULA terms.
('the owner authorizes')

There are some who argue that software licenses are effectively sales. I tend to agree, because MSFT no longer controls the software. However, with 'activation' and other 'phone home' software, this may not really be the case. If MSFT exerts control over my PC from Redmond, then they have a legitimate claim that I'm 'just a terminal'.

if it's licensed then one should be allowed to make backups of the disc or receive a replacement disc if the disc gets lost or damaged

Here is the reproduction right:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . . to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords. 17 U.S.C. 106(1).

Here is the fair use doctrine, 17 U.S.C. 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the fac

Re:This is legal in the US too

[mellon]

They own the copyright. That means they have the right, by law, to restrict how you copy the product. This right is limited, both in duration and in effect - there are fairly complicated fair use practices established by legal precedent and by acts of Congress, that govern the circumstances under which you do not need permission to make a copy.

So in fact they do have a right to dictate certain things you might do with your copy of the software. But one of those rights is not the right to coerce you into not selling it.

Not at all like used anything else

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Typically, when you think of used goods, you think of worn out hand-me-downs donated to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. But software licenses are not anything at all like that. In fact, they do not wear out, nor do they have any physical form except for the paper they are printed on. They are purely logical constructs.

But IP owners would have you think otherwise. They want you to think that licenses are akin to the actual CDs that the media came on. One CD, one installation. However, this is prima facie ludicrous. One CD suffices to create a farm of PC installations, the only thing needed is multiple licenses for each individual installation.

So don't be fooled into thinking that buying CDs is absolutely necessary. All you need are valid licenses and you have the rights to install as many times using the same CD as you have licenses.

Re:Not at all like used anything else

[MichaelSmith]

But software licenses are not anything at all like that. In fact, they do not wear out

But they do become obsolete faster than most other products. The Windows98 license I own is pretty worn out in one sense.

Re:Not at all like used anything else

[bnoblet]

But IP owners would have you think otherwise. They want you to think that licenses are akin to the actual CDs that the media came on. Well no. Software vendors clearly make the distinction that although you own the physical media (CD), you do not own the software. You are granted a license to use the software, subject to various conditions. If you don't agree to the conditions, go somewhere else! Pretty much every EULA makes that distinction.

Re:Not at all like used anything else

[Decker-Mage]

Oh I wouldn't go that far. My Windows 98 was first, last, and always used for classic wargames here and it isn't worn out at all. I keep one machine configured just for that reason. True, it spends most of its time in an off condition, but the OS is still fulfilling the purpose I bought it for today. [These games will not run under an NT-based OS no matter how you fiddle with the WoW settings.]

Re:Not at all like used anything else

[tepples]

But software licenses are not anything at all like that. In fact, they do not wear out

Your license to use a particular version of Windows has effectively worn out once Microsoft announces the version's end of life and crackers find an exploitable vulnerability.

Re:Not at all like used anything else

[geoff lane]

Perhaps the EULA does but when MS/FAST/BSA/RIAA etc talk in public they rarely make a distinction. In fact they seem to go out of their way to give the impression that the customer has no legal rights at all. The MS Windows EULA says that if you don't agree you can get a refund, but MS says "not from us, talk to who ever sold the computer." Dell etc say the software EULA belongs to MS so don't expect a refund from us. So who and what exactly is the EULA protecting?

Most EULAs have yet to be tested in court. It would be interesting to see a definitive view on their legality.

Re:Not at all like used anything else

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I like Free Software. The Free doesn't mean 'no charge' the Free means Freedom. I can *download* several cd images (I happen to use Debian), install it on my computer, and can pass the licence (ok I'm required to pass the licence on, its not an option) to others so that they can do the same. I can make a hundred CD images if I want, and use those to install and run on 10,000 computers. The licence travels ad infinitum, and contained within it is the ability of the last user to relicence to whomever they wish. Everyone must comply with the full licence though.

Should be co.uk

[caffeination]

It's pretty annoying that whois.sc has turned to crap under this pointless rebranding, because I want to check if discount-licensing.co.uk is still available.

If it is, these guys are clearly aiming for international business, because any British person could tell you that businesses operating inside the uk always go for .co.uk domains.

That being said, there are a few mentions of being in the UK on the first page.

The best part so far has been seeing how they've dealt with the challenge of materialising something as abstract as software licences into a picture for a logo. What the hell is that thing?

Re:Should be co.uk

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Possible interpretations of the discount-licensing.com icon:

- Hash and Sickle (those dirty commies)
- Sore nipple
- Scratched magnifying glass
- Stylized Islamic star and crescent
- Drunk Asian with hair in a topknot
- Drunk grandmother with hair in a bun
- Stylized '/.'
- C#/.

Re:Should be co.uk

[MichaelSmith]

The best part so far has been seeing how they've dealt with the challenge of materialising something as abstract as software licences into a picture for a lgo. What the hell is that thing?

The favicon looks a bit like Netscape.

Strange that despite their business name they only claim to resell Microsoft software licenses. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a copy of VMS.

I wonder what their Licence Procurement Division does. It that like dumpster diving?

Re:Should be co.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a magnifying glass, just slightly stylized and at an angle.

Though it seems to be at the angle you use for burning ants... maybe that's why they don't sell to individuals...

Re:Should be co.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

> businesses operating inside the uk always go for .co.uk domains

Crap.

theaa.COM
dabs.COM
rswww.COM
bt.COM
avbrief.COM
multimap.COM

Just a small selection off the top of my British head!

Re:Should be co.uk

[syneca]

The best part so far has been seeing how they've dealt with the challenge of materialising something as abstract as software licences into a picture for a logo. What the hell is that thing?

My best guess is that it's a tennis racket, implying that they're "bouncing back" licenses to people. But yeah, who knows??

Software and program support and ongoing value

[AppleTwoGuru]

How funny. This is one product, when resold, you would think Microsoft would benefit from it. They would if they could get people to upgrade soon after they purchase these licenses from the reseller. However, there is one feature about old Microsoft software that would be a hinderance to Microsoft. And that would be updates, especially security updates. And the fact that Microsoft EXPECTS a certain cycle of upgrade revenue, which negated the need for this older software in the first place. Another thing that comes to mind is support of these legacy programs. I think Microsoft is trying to get out of that business, no? Should be interesting to see how this pans out.

one question

[Sathias]

So does this apply to volume license editions of Windows? :P

Re:one question

[SithLordOfLanc]

Volume licences for Windows are upgrades only. There is no volume licenses for the full versions.

Necrodupe?

[krakass]

I thought I remembered reading about this a while ago. I did a quick google search and well... http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/10/235 6238

Re:Necrodupe?

[caffeination]

This is the wrong way to inform of this. Dupes are tagged as such instead.

Re:Necrodupe?

[jamie]

That's not a dupe.

First story, November 2005: "Disclic, through discount-licensing.com, this week began offering secondhand software licenses..."

Today's story, April 2006: "Sales of second-hand Microsoft software licences have doubled month-on-month since the market was opened in November 2005..."

A dupe is when we post the same story twice with no new news between the two stories. This is a followup -- thanks for bringing it to our attention, and I've added the November story to our Related Links section.

Good and Bad

[ajs318]

On one hand this is good because it reaffirms such doctrines as "fair dealing" and "exhaustion of rights", which are statutory rights that cannot legally be abridged by contract. On the other hand it is bad because it perpetuates the myth of dependency on Microsoft {though I suppose I shouldn't complain about that without actually trying to do something positive, like build and try to sell a sexy little all-in-one business server based on i-tal software}.

Disclic aren't doing anything illegal, nor are they doing anything wrong {an important distinction in the UK, where many things that are not wrong are technically illegal, and many things that are wrong are not illegal}. I'm sure Microsoft would like to have a pop at them; but I don't know of anything that they could actually make stick. And if they do try, it will almost certainly call into question the legal enforcibility of EULAs in the UK.

Re:Good and Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

{an important distinction in the UK, where many things that are not wrong are technically illegal, and many things that are wrong are not illegal}

Sorry. But what a load of BS is this? Where did this come from? What is this "wrong" you speak of? Morals? Why is this an important distinction in the UK? How is it important? In legal matters? (IAAL in the UK and have never heard the concept of "wrong" dichotomized from illegal for any purpose of legal dispute)

Re:Good and Bad

[ajs318]

It is not morally wrong for an adult without obligations to smoke cannabis in private, although it's illegal. And it is not illegal to throw food away, though while people are starving it's morally very wrong.

How's that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was pricing a used laptop and one of the selling features was that it was loaded with Microsoft software. But I didn't want Microsoft anything because I was going to load Open Source everything. Too bad, the software is attached to the computer and we can't sell it otherwise.

Presumably when the buyers get the software, they have to phone in to get an activation number. Can't Microsoft just refuse?

Second question. When you buy a used computer already loaded with software, what are your rights?

Re:How's that work?

[ajs318]

Presumably when the buyers get the software, they have to phone in to get an activation number. Can't Microsoft just refuse?

If you bothered to read the article, you would see that, so far, they are only dealing with bulk licences -- not individual ones. No activation number involved. This makes sense on two levels; one, there'd be nothing to stop a company that was going out of business from passing on a bulk licence through some unofficial channel anyway, so it might as well be officialised; and two, companies are more likely to be in a position to defend themselves if it goes T.U. {although, don't forget, this is happening in the UK; loser pays all costs and no cash changes hands until a verdict is delivered}.

Second question. When you buy a used computer already loaded with software, what are your rights?

If the software was correctly licenced {discounting any licence terms which invoke the severability clause by contradicting the Law of the Land} then your rights are the same as any other licenced user. If the software was not correctly licenced, although you bought it in good faith, then your rights are limited to your statutory rights of fair dealing under copyright law {i.e. you may make copies only as deemed necessary to the task of using the software for its Rightful Purpose}. If the software was not correctly licenced and you had reason to believe that this was the case, then you may be an accessary to copyright infringement.

Re:How's that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contractual (EULA) clauses are only valid within the law and the European software directive says you're allowed to resell software. Basically Microsoft can put whatever they want in the EULA, however that does not make it legally enforcable (eg: This "attached to a computer" bollocks).

Re:How's that work?

[Hognoxious]

in the UK; loser pays all costs

Ah, my old favourite: American misunderstanding of the English legal system no 13.

You'll no doubt be explaining later how the burden of proof is reversed in libel cases. That's number 2.

I'm going to mix things and hope you won't notice

[Anonymous Coward]

"Modern societies go out of their way to restrict one's freedom"

Actually, modern has nothing to do with it. And just living with another person will restrict your freedom. Ask any married man. But some of those rules are societal such as you mention:

    "you cannot buy alcohol and give it to minors"

or

    "[you cannot] drive a car around without a license"

Let's be clear about these things. They are *laws* debated and agreed to by *represented officials* and can be changed at any time if society at large decides these rules need to be changed.

Also, it's worth noting these laws don't restrict the sale or ownership of an item, they restrict the use of an item.

Let's compare that with a EULA from MS not to resell that item.

1) It's not against the law to buy or sell software
2) Copyright law has no jurisdiction in this case, because it deals with reproduction, not sale
3) First sale doctrine encourages me to resell what I own
4) Microsoft would rather I didn't and they put it in a EULA.
5) Nobody voted on this restriction. In fact, they didn't even get a say. I bought a PC a few years ago, it came with XP Pro, I assumed I could sell it, but no, it's licensed to the box and I can't resell it. Why? Well... just because. I don't think it would hold up in court, but it's not worth it to try.

So please stop comparing a EULA to underage drinking and societal conventions because they are not at all related. EULAs are a trick that may or not be legal and they are enforced by big money, not society.

whois

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.geektools.com/whois.php will give you what you want.

What an awesome idea...

[mblase]

...Now, is there any chance I can legally buy a used driver's license?

Re:What an awesome idea...

[MichaelSmith]

Now, is there any chance I can legally buy a used driver's license?

I am pretty sure you can do that where I live (Victoria, Australia) but if a cop asks to see your license and you show them something other than the license the state Government issued to you then you would be in trouble.

Re:What an awesome idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any chance I can legally buy a used driver's license?

When it comes to used-once serial numbers, why not use a camera phone to snap the "1/2 CPU" stickers attached to all those machines for bank tellers, point-of-sale terminals, etc.

If you're already using dodgy licensing from Microsoft's point of view, there is little difference. Bull Shit Artists (BSA) are gonna try strongarming you into a settlement anyhow...

Re:What an awesome idea...

[Mercano]

Usually, the driver licenses are given for free to whoever wants them. They are mainly concerned that you buy the hardware. The software that lets you use your shiny new video card isn't where they make thier money.

Re:What an awesome idea...

[Mattwolf7]

He is literally talking about drivers licenses, that plastic card that the Government issues you...

Re:What an awesome idea...

[AKosygin]

Here, you are violating different laws. (Note, I am not a lawyer, but it makes sense this way.) All a license mean, is that a privilege is to be conferred to you by making an exception to an existing restriction. If the restriction is not there in the first place, there are no exceptions that can be made as you already have the rights.

Think of a license this way: You are prohibited from driving on the road. A license is given to you, which means you are excempt from the restriction. But you are not prohibited from walking on the street, so granting you a license for walking on the street doesn't work, because there is nothing to excempt you from. A license is supposed to define what you are allowed to do that you normally cannot do because of some other rules. The restrictions in the license saying you may not copy, redistribute, etc. does not come from the license, it comes from the copyright laws. All the license is doing is that it is telling you that the ability to copy, redistribute, etc. is not part of the EULA. If they left out that part and said, you may only, all inclusively, use the software on one computer and that ownership is not transferred, and say nothing else in the EULA, you still cannot copy the software because copyright laws prevail as the author has not make an exception to you via a license.

So, to come back to your arguement, the doctrine of first sale of copyright law specifically says that you MAY resell the license, granting permission and that it is not restricted. So a license cannot add restrictions, but only remove one. And since the copyright law does not provide such a restriction, they can't take away rights you hold.

A driver license on the otherhand, you violate laws regarding fraud, which I am fairly certain it is legally restricted in the first place. Remember, the EULA does not trump any laws of the land, it is only to conferr additional rights that is conferrable, but they can't use an EULA to take away your rights. Otherwise, someone can write an EULA that gives users the right to use the software and in exchange take the user's right to breathe (or something like that).

"In this country you can"

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a conversation with a professor of mine in UK last year. The CS department had purchased some dozens of thin clients only to install Debian Linux on them and make a cluster out of them. Each thin clien came with pre-installed Windows XP Pro. In a sense the department had wasted nearly 2000 pounds to buy Microsoft software it didn't need. I asked him why didn'tthe department asked for a refund? He told me that it's a very long and confusing procedure and neither the manufactor nor Microsoft are very willing to offer the refund. It was a big waste of time.
I asked him then: "Since somebody can buy and sell second hand CDs, DVDs, Pc Games and Gamecube games why can't anybody sell his own Microsoft CD and software License?"
"In this country you can".
That means...Free trade.

Used drivers licenses

[Kadin2048]

Sure, I have a few old expired ones hanging around; I'm not sure how far you'll get, seeing as they have my name and picture on them, and a corner is cut off...but they were given back to me by and employee at the DMV because I asked nicely, so I assume I can do whatever non-fradulent thing I want to do with them now.

In some states you can also buy old license plates. That doesn't mean it's legal to put them on your car, but you can get them. In fact, I know of at least one state where the DMV sells "novelty" plates direct: they're not legal to actually use as a license plate, but if you wanted to get a historical one for your Model T, they'll sell it to you.

You can buy and sell all sorts of stuff that would be illegal if used in a certain way.

Bit rot

[tepples]

Remember also, cars wear out and die; a used software license installs and works perfectly every time.

True, but the software itself bit-rots as crackers discover new vulnerabilities in an end-of-lifed operating system.

I don't believe software makers should have the right to this "forced non-resale" licensing

If it's banned, publishers of proprietary programs will just phrase their EULAs as 95 year rental agreements.

Re:Bit rot

[Anonymous Coward]

MS products don't bit rot; they get updates. Office XP (which is still supported, I think) is more secure and ultimately better today than ever due to software updates. Sure someday they'll quit supporting it. But computer security only matters for computers that are on the Internet. We have several national food-service companies (Jamba Juice, for one) as customers & they have Win2k computers in their back rooms with no Internet access. Their registers run either Win95 or Win98 on a network. If they have 1000 stores, one Win2k license and two Win95 licenses per store... that's a hell of a lot of money if they upgrade everything to Windows XP, when there's absolutely no reason to do so. That could equal a whole store's annual profit, or like six or seven managers' salaries.

> If it's banned, publishers of proprietary programs will just phrase their EULAs as 95 year rental agreements.

? Does the vendor rent it from MS or... ?

Re:Bit rot

[tepples]

But computer security only matters for computers that are on the Internet.

The Article discusses resale of volume licenses for operating systems including various versions of the Windows Server operating system (Windows 2000 Server, Windows Server 2003). What percent of those are sequestered on a private LAN with an air gap between it and the Internet?

Does the vendor rent it from MS or... ?

In a rental scenario, the vendor may act as an agent to set up rentals between Microsoft and the end user.

Learn some manners

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - I read the article.
2 - I have no experience with bulk licenses.
I asked the questions in the hope that someone knowledgeable would answer them. Accusing me of not reading the article is rather trollish behaviour.

Re:Learn some manners

[ajs318]

My bad. The combination of Anonymous Coward and a question which would have been answered by following links within the article, led me to infer incorrectly that you were trolling. For this I apologise.

To avoid potential misunderstandings which may arise from others misinterpreting your intentions in future, may I respectfully suggest that you consider logging in before posting bona fide questions?

resell

[jawz101]

So licenses are an expense, not an asset. I don't understand that if you plan to use a std image on every pc in an organization you must 1st have a volume license for the org, then each pc has to have it's own individual license for the OS, yet you cannot resell the individual license once removed from your organization. Wouldn't the license number be available to the buyer of your used equipment, as it is still afixed to the pc? Why can't you sell them seperate of each other?

used?

[bokmann]

This is neat and all, but who is going to want to buy a license for something like Microsoft Word when someone has already used up some of the words you can type? I mean, is there an easy way to figure out how many of a particular word is left?

Re:used?

[chawly]

Yes there is - just keep typing and counting as you go. When it will not produce the word you type, you're going to know how many were left. Careful though, if the word doesn't appear on the screen, you might want to consider a hardware problem - the keyboard for example. If the word doesn't get printed you may need to check the printer ink level.

Re:I'm going to mix things and hope you won't noti

[Mateo_LeFou]

>Let's be clear about these things. They are *laws* debated and agreed to by >*represented officials* and can be changed at any time if society at large decides >these rules need to be changed. I think parent is of the opinion that no laws represent the "society at large" because there's no such thing as a societal goal. I know a guy like this; everything is the individual, it is not possible for a community to draft/alter a law that applies to everyone, because not everyone has the same goals. etc.

Good, good... muahahahahaha.

[Spy der Mann]

Imagine A company like Red Hat PURCHASING Microsoft stock at discount prices! :D

Principle of First Sale

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what permits and governs the reselling of used books, LPs, CDs, and cassettes. If you bought it, you can sell it. It was established by the US Supreme Court about a hunnert years ago (forgot exact date). In the mid 1800s, books used to have a license agreement prohibiting transfer. I'm a book collector. Software license agreements are nothing new.

Retail software licenses are treated the same way by the court. Commercial agreements can be almost anything, though, that's why there is so much non-transferable fund raising software. Just try selling your unwanted copy of Sage50 published by Best Software.

Oops... misread the title :(

[Spy der Mann]

They said Microsoft SOFTWARE, not Microsoft STOCK. Oh darn...

Small things show just how bad it is.

[twitter]

On one hand this is good because it reaffirms such doctrines as "fair dealing" and "exhaustion of rights", which are statutory rights that cannot legally be abridged by contract.

Wow, I'm underwhelmed.

Wake me up when you can sell the crappy CD that comes with your non-naked PC the same way you could sell it's floppy drive, the manuals or any other worthless component. It's funny they want to extend all of the limitations of physical property into the binary world and then binary limits into the physical world.

Obligatory Simpsons reference

[d99-sbr]

Lou: Another case of Monopoly related violence, chief.
Wiggum: How do those Parker Brothers sleep at night?

Fallacy of Microsoft's "lost revenue" argument.

[Kadin2048]

This can't be stated enough.

Microsoft only "lost" a potential sale, and even then, they lost a potential sale at a much lower price then they probably would have been willing to accept. I don't know what the pricing on used licenses is, but if we assume (just for the sake of argument here) that a used license is £50 and a new one is £200 and 10 licenses were purchased, they should only be able to claim that they 'didn't receive' £500. Because to claim £2000 is to say that the company would have bought the full-price licenses if the used ones hadn't been available. And that's a pretty fat assumption to make. It's the sort of thing I'd assume out of a Microsoft sales droid or spokesweasel, but let's not repeat it as if it's fact.

Just to use office suites as an example, there are quite a few out there besides Microsoft's. Yes, MS Works is dominant, but that doesn't mean it's the only option. At (to continue my numbers) at £50, you might decide to go with Works. But if the only way you can get it is to pay £200, then suddenly some of the other suites look more attractive -- even though they're not Microsoft Works.

Free products like OpenOffice, even older or less-frequently updated commercial products like Lotus Works, cost much less than Microsoft's offerings and do most of the same things; OpenOffice and StarOffice even interoperate with MS's gear pretty well.

Really, in this example, the people who have the biggest claim to the "lost business" argument are the manufacturers and distributers of other low-cost suites.

Microsoft may be dominant, and they may have a monopoly, but that doesn't entitle them to claim or for us to believe that everyone would pay whatever Microsoft demanded if there wasn't a way to buy it used (or pirate it, another popular option). Some people would just refuse or not be able to pay MS's full price, and seek alternatives.

Re:Fallacy of Microsoft's "lost revenue" argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

£200? they bought office XP; a single *new* license isn't even close to that... and read TFA, you save 20% to 50% - not 75%. and still, they managed to *save* £10,000? there are companies that use OOo and whatnot, but surely micro$oft is losing something to these guys... assuming they *would* have bought their licenses new, that would have been like, at least 150 copies

Re:Fallacy of Microsoft's "lost revenue" argument.

[Kadin2048]

Quoth the A.C.:

£200? they bought office XP; a single *new* license isn't even close to that... and read TFA, you save 20% to 50% - not 75%. and still, they managed to *save* £10,000? there are companies that use OOo and whatnot, but surely micro$oft is losing something to these guys... assuming they *would* have bought their licenses new, that would have been like, at least 150 copies

Calm down, I was just using numbers that were easy to work with for the sake of argument. I thought I made it clear that the amounts that I was using weren't real, it was the concept of "lost revenue" that I was talking about.

But anyway, just to restate: I don't believe in the logic of treating business that you didn't get as a fiscal "loss," in general. However, if you were going to go down that route, then certainly the MOST that you could say you 'lost' was the amount that the customer paid to your competitor, NOT the price of your product at the same quantity.

I agree that the £10,000 savings seems a little suspicious; even at 50% savings we're talking about a lot of copies. I inflated the prices and savings in my example to make a point.

Re:Opportunity

[DavidTC]

[insert gag where we barter on price, and then you realize that I'm talking about how much you'll have to pay me to haul it away]

Re:I'm going to mix things and hope you won't noti

[SnarfQuest]

"you cannot buy alcohol and give it to minors"

I'll bet you I could. Albertsons sells 70% isopropyl, and I bet that I could buy a bottle of that and give it to a pre-teen. In front of a policeman, even.

"[you cannot] drive a car around without a license"

Wanna bet? Just let me grab a random (unlicensed) teenager off the street, and I'll bet they could drive a car. Maybe not legally, but they would still be able to do it.

Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

My decision to post as an AC is a result of my paranoia. I behave as though nothing on the internet ever disappears and everything can, in theory and often in practice, be traced back to its creator. A future employer might not like the opinions I express and ten years from now I might change my opinions. I would rather not have to explain something I posted today to someone twenty years from now. As it is now, I post from behind a firewall with many other users. I have at least some plausible deniability.

The other thing is that some of my posts are dumber than others and I am happy not to have to 'wear' them.

Subscription?

[tepples]

This is the wrong way to inform of this. Dupes are tagged as such instead.

Would you please donate a subscription to krakass so that krakass can inform the Slashdot public of alleged dupes in the "proper" way?

Re:Subscription?

[caffeination]

Perhaps he could just trust the other users? Or maybe if he wasn't the sort of person who triumphantly posted links to previous articles, he'd have better karma and he'd be in the beta program anyway despite his lack of a subscription.

Re:Subscription?

[tepples]

he'd have better karma and he'd be in the beta program anyway

Karma isn't the only criterion. I have had consistent Excellent karma since two weeks after I got this account, yet I'm not in any sort of beta. Did I miss a sign-up date?

Anyway, I contend that it was just phrased wrong. Don't say "DUPE!!!1!1" (exaggeration); instead ask "What has changed since the last story?" If something in fact has changed, you get modded Interesting; if nothing has, you get modded Insightful for asking a rhetorical question.

Re:Subscription?

[caffeination]

As far as I know it's completely random. I'm only guessing that they at least screen by karma beforehand.

Re:I'm going to mix things and hope you won't noti

[NoMaster]

Let's be clear about these things. They are *laws* debated and agreed to by *represented officials* and can be changed at any time if society at large decides these rules need to be changed.

Let's be even clearer.

They are *laws* "debated" and "agreed to" by *self-interested individuals who have obtained a position of power specifically in order to take advantage of others, and who have been further corrupted through their own greed and self-interest by external non-elected and self-interested outside parties, many of which don't even have the right to vote*, and can only be changed with great difficulty and great individual and societal cost if society at large can be turned from their own self-absorbtion and cultivated fear for sufficiently long enough to decide these rules need to be changed.

Though yours is snappier and fits better into a primary-school civics textbook...

Wow - thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the better, and most useful, postings that I've found on Slashdot. Thanks for posting that. I had no idea that the courts have come down so strongly on the concept, and really appreciate the info.

Posted anonymously so that I don't give the impression that I'm brown nosing; I just wanted to express my simple gratitude.