If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Kerry Brown wrote:
"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!" 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 Only in that you are comparing services with copyrighted material. They are different under the law. I agree that is a huge mess right now, and smart folks stay away from payfor services on the net. Like I would NEVER buy music over the net, with every service having different rules about what you can and can't with it. Plus the pricing is nearly the same as buying a CD, and you get all the arcane rules on top of it all. I almost thank God for Apple iTunes! It's seeming popularity compared to other online services is gonna eventually force an industry player to start selling cheap unrestricted songs to make a major dent into Apple's share of the online music pie. See I really think, as long as Congress keeps the hell out of it, that the marketplace will decide. Just because you can make a technology that can restrict use, doesn't mean that people will put up with it and its inherent problems for long. The more experience that consumers have with copy-protection technologies, the more they figure out they don't like it, and will start jumping ship to competitors that don't use such restricting technology. PA and Validation and whatever is next in the pipeline WILL end up biting MS in the ass when it has viable competition. And that day is getting closer, and closer. -- 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" |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
NoStop wrote:
kurttrail wrote: You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows tranfers with the computer it is licensed with. I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must purchase a new license. Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense. "Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER, provided you retain no copies, if you transfer the SOFTWARE (including all component parts, the media, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE." - WinXPSP1 OEM EULA -- 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" |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
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 The whole concept of an EULA is bull****. When you buy a coffee maker, you don't need to enter into a contract to use it. When you buy a book, you don't have to sign an agreement to read it. EULAs were a bad, stupid practice that never should have started in the first place. Software is protected by copyright law. That's all it needs. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
kurttrail wrote:
Kerry Brown wrote: "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!" 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 Only in that you are comparing services with copyrighted material. They are different under the law. I agree that is a huge mess right now, and smart folks stay away from payfor services on the net. Like I would NEVER buy music over the net, with every service having different rules about what you can and can't with it. Plus the pricing is nearly the same as buying a CD, and you get all the arcane rules on top of it all. I almost thank God for Apple iTunes! It's seeming popularity compared to other online services is gonna eventually force an industry player to start selling cheap unrestricted songs to make a major dent into Apple's share of the online music pie. See I really think, as long as Congress keeps the hell out of it, that the marketplace will decide. Just because you can make a technology that can restrict use, doesn't mean that people will put up with it and its inherent problems for long. The more experience that consumers have with copy-protection technologies, the more they figure out they don't like it, and will start jumping ship to competitors that don't use such restricting technology. PA and Validation and whatever is next in the pipeline WILL end up biting MS in the ass when it has viable competition. And that day is getting closer, and closer. Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are right that MS is digging its own grave. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, I know! (I find other ways to live dangerously.)
But there are those who actually treat the pillow label as sacrosanct, even after all the jokes. It is the same mindset as treating the wording of the EULA as a religion. Bob I wrote: As long as you are the end consumer, that is NOT "illegal". So much for living dangerously! :-) T. Waters wrote: I am one of those who believe that honoring the spirit of a rule is more sensible than blindly honoring the word of a rule. I have been known to cut the label from a pillow! |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
T. Waters wrote:
Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are right that MS is digging its own grave. The grave was dug a while ago. Now they're just slowing filling it in. :-) -- ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient. A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Al Smith wrote:
The whole concept of an EULA is bull****. When you buy a coffee maker, you don't need to enter into a contract to use it. When you buy a book, you don't have to sign an agreement to read it. EULAs were a bad, stupid practice that never should have started in the first place. Software is protected by copyright law. That's all it needs. EULAs also disclaim all responsibility for all perils that might result from using the software. A copyright does not. In my opinion, copyright and patents are far more dangerous to the public good than EULA will ever be. It allows the privatization of what is essentially the public domain. That is why I like the GPL as an alternative. -- ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient. A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Alias" wrote:
1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact. Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total. So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade their computers? No. I was just trying to put the issue into perspective. 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay for. I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades and OEMs. It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP http://aumha.org/alex.htm |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Martell" wrote in message ... "Alias" wrote: 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact. Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total. So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade their computers? No. I was just trying to put the issue into perspective. 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay for. I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades and OEMs. It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP At the largest department store in Spain, retail Home upgrade is on sale for $US 395.41. The only other Windows OS offered is a Windows 2000 Professional upgrade for Windows NT at $US 245.33. OEM Home goes for US 96.75 so it's pretty obvious why retail isn't very popular here. -- Alias Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me. Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:19:51 GMT, NoStop
wrote: T. Waters wrote: Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are right that MS is digging its own grave. The grave was dug a while ago. Now they're just slowing filling it in. :-) Not quite, they can write any EULA they want with their next OS. At worst they have people not willing to upgrade to the new OS, but given their deep pockets they can wait it out until people have enough reason to upgrade... which is a bit what's already happened. When their market saturation is as great as it is, they need not collect a fee for every single box running windows to remain rich and the monopoly on the desktop. Don't forget that 3rd world emerging markets are yet another huge source of income, and so far they've done quite well without that revenue. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting Memo | Brad Licatesi | Dell Computers | 13 | March 31st 05 06:16 AM |
Interesting benchmarks | johns | Ati Videocards | 5 | July 23rd 04 07:17 PM |
HP an interesting article | Mickey | Printers | 6 | May 27th 04 05:13 PM |
amd 64bits interesting? | Kriss | General | 9 | September 24th 03 09:00 PM |