"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Kerry Brown wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
computer. She even said that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
cause a phone in event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram
chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
inconsistency here?

The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many
end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very
few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't think they
are. People should read contracts. If they don't they should take
responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later someone will
challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes clicking a button
online, etc. It will probably be to do with credit card charges
rather than software but once a precedent is set it will probably
apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do
with a computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is
right and they are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the
s**t will hit the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the
flame wars here.
Kerry

You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law, when
it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make software, and
other copyright material much different.

Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit wrote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable
on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they
violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Now that case didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling ProCD's
database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right of the
individuals for private non-commercial use.

Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we treat
the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and
therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform
Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between "contracts"
and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first
sale) is a subject for another day."

The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called UCITA that
would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the law,
unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it was this
portion of the law that was among the most controvertial aspects of it.

Do copyright owners have a right to control their copyright in public
and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the PRIVATE
and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that is where NO
COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any other way of
looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of PEOPLE to their PRIVACY in
their OWN HOMES!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax case -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


I think this may be changed when someone challenges the legality of online
subscriptions and proving who clicked on the button. Some porn sites/online
chat sites will bill your credit card monthly based on an initial sign up.
They then make it very hard to opt out. The credit card companies wring
their hands of responsibility and make you prove you have tried to cancel.
It can take several months to do this. Another case is eBay and Paypal.
Paypal basically always takes the buyers side and refunds the money. If
there was a genuine contract why would they do this? Then there is spyware.
Does clicking on a hard to read and interpret online EULA give them the
right to cause problems with your computer and/or collect private data?
There are many other inconsistencies with online transactions. Sooner or
later someone will challenge this in court. When it happens it may apply to
the broader question of EULA's in general. I'm not a lawyer so I may be way
off base.

Kerry