A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Compaq Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How do I get "Administrator Privileges"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 3rd 05, 12:25 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Noel Paton wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I hesitate to join in this slanging match. However.

You have bought a licence, which has certain conditions attached

to
it.
Those conditions are enforceable at law under most jurisdictions.


That depends on the license.



The License terms have been tested in the US and the UK courts - and

stand.

Direct me to an example of it tested in the U.S court system.


If you buy the freehold on a house, you are almost certain to buy

it
with covenants attached. These may say, for arguments sake, that

you
cannot erect an advertising hoarding on the land. The covenant

will
certainly say that as a condition of sale that these restrictions

will
apply to all heirs, successors and other purchasers. If you then

build a
hoarding and one of the heirs or successors of the person or

company
who
originally sold the house and land and imposed the covenant cares

to
go
to law they will win, unless the covenant can be shown to be

grossly
unreasonable.


very bad example. You cannot draw a parallel here, since this is so
completely different than what we are talking about here.


Not at all - Microsoft own the software - you only own a license!


Breaking zoning laws is still not the same thing. There are legitimate
and enforceable reasons for covenants.


In the same way Microsoft will have imposed certain conditions on

Dell,
over and above those conditions in a retail licence, in granting

them
a
licence to sell PC's with Windows installed. In exchange the

licence
would have been considerably cheaper than the cost of a retail

licence,
and Dell will have passed some of that saving onto yourself when

you
bought the Dell machine. The licence will require Dell to impose

the
conditions on the purchaser of the PC. At law these conditions

are
enforceable.


This is not about Microsoft imposing restrictions on Dell. What is

not
enforceable is Dell imposing the restriction mentioned on the user.


IT IS about Microsoft's terms and conditions - Dell merely act as a

Vendor
in law


And again, IT IS about enforcing the restrications you mentioned on me.


Whether Microsoft or Dell would actually come after you is another
matter, it would depend upon them finding out and whether you were

worth
suing. So it might be better to keep schtoom as to what you do in

the
privacy of your own home. If I were you and I was in business,

then
I
would look over my shoulder, from time to time.


Well, I'm not in business, and you are paranoid.


Neither of which would prevent you being prosecuted, should MS take

such a
step.


With our screwed up judicial system they can prosecute me for
breathing.


To expand on the car example. If your old car is totalled, and all

you
have left are the tires, you can still use them again. And no
restrictions by Firestone imposed on Ford will give them the

ability to
enforce a rule that says you cannot use those tires anymore.

The original Dell was crap, and the OS is all I have left of it.

And
since the pc I put it on also belongs to me, I intend to get the

most
out of it.


Experiences count for nothing in law - and the CD is legally

worthless, and
any install from it legally a no-no.
The ONLY machine that CD was legally allowed to run on was the

machine it
came with.


BTW. Direct me to where it says that in my license.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

  #33  
Old February 3rd 05, 12:42 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We're wasting our breath. He's convinced himself it is Ok because it
is
'his' copy.

It's not. He doesn't care. He'll rationalize it forever.


And again, we will continmue to disagree, so you are correct. You have
been wasting your breath. :-)

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

  #37  
Old February 3rd 05, 07:18 AM
Noel Paton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...

..

BTW. Direct me to where it says that in my license.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Read the thing for yourself for a change- it's there in black and white!

I don't have an ME Dell CD around to read, but it's plain as day in my OEM
EULA here.

Besides which, you probably wouldn't believe me if I quote the text verbatim
anyhow
Read the EULA


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's


  #39  
Old February 9th 05, 04:23 AM
Casey Tompkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, Todd, if you want to follow MicroSoft's lead, go ahead. I mean,
do you let the RIAA define "fair use," and all that as well?

MS will claim as much as is humanly possible, and then some. Why?
Because that way they can establish, by precedent, more ways to screw
end users out of their money.

I'm old enough to remember when companies began using the copyright
paradigm to protect software. A fair number of people thought that was
a bad idea, since copyright law was complex as it was. But still,
10-20 years ago, it was accepted that when you bought software, you
bought, and owned, a *copy of the software*. Of course, if that
paradigm had been followed rigorously, companies would have been
obliged to provide free copies to public libraries for fair use...

The classic example of this was Borland's "just like a book."
liscence. You could use their products just like a book. You could
loan your purchased copy to a friend, and he could use it, but only if
it weren't installed on your system (and in use) as well. Quite simple
and effective. Pity it never took off.

Point being that the principle was that you purchased, and owned, a
copy of the code, in the same way you purchased a book or a magazine.
Of course, MS (and everyone else) made a point of including a liscence
which stated -basically- that the software was worthless, warranteed
to accomplish nothing, and if you used XXX software to manage your
business, and lost money, it wasn't their fault. If, however, the
floppies it came on were bad they would replace the physical media for
a nominal fee. On the other hand, if you WERE caught copying this
software (which, recall, was not warranteed for any "fitness or use")
you agreed that the XXX company had the right to carry off your
firstborn in compensation.

Now a few years ago (after they had cornered about 95%+ of the market)
MS realized that income from new sales had flattened out, and the only
way to keep revenue coming in was change how they could charge for
their software. That's when they dropped the original "buy a copy of
the code" idea and moved on to "buy a *temporary liscense* to *use"
their software." That way they can keep gouging people for updates,
especially when they drop support for older platforms.

Well, naturally they had to keep people from recycling all those
copies of older, but (in many cases) perfectly usable software. So
they decided to "limit" transferring software.

What I want to see is the specific statute that says Darren can't do
what he says he can. I don't care about how someone makes a living
agreeing with MicroSoft's interpretation of copyright law, I want a
specific citation, including a direct quote -from an actual statue-,
which says that MS can get away with that crap.

Aside from the fact that no one has taken Bill "I'm the richest man in
the world" Gates to court about it yet, that is.

On 02 Feb 2005 21:51:05 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:

Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
Dell system.

But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
well, you're in luck:

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx



Best Regards,


  #40  
Old February 9th 05, 12:07 PM
Tom Scales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Casey,

Interesting story.

Completely wrong.

I've been in the software business for 24 years. Software licensing was
defined LONG before Microsoft had any clout in the industry. You're
confusing OWN with LICENSE and using them interchangeably.

They're not.

Software for enterprise use has always been restricted -- much more than the
MS license. It was licensed to a specific machine, by serial number. You're
upgrading? Great, that will be more money please. Not only that, it was NOT
transferrable EVEN IF YOUR COMPANY WAS PURCHASED. I made a lot of money
when companies were acquired, as I could sell a BRAND NEW license.

Microsoft ABSOLUTELY offers a license just as the Borland license. It's
called RETAIL. You purchase a copy at your local OfficeMax and you can
transfer it as often as you'd like.

But, you'll pay FULL retail.

That's not what you're buying when you buy a computer with an OS on it.
You're paying a MUCH reduced price for the operating system, in exchange for
agreeing that it is licensed ONLY to that machine. If you want a retail
version, it can be done, even from Dell, but you'll pay $100-200 MORE for
the machine.

It's YOUR choice, not Microsoft's.

Too bad many people will only read your diatribe and will actually believe
it.

Tom


"Casey Tompkins" wrote in message
...
Well, Todd, if you want to follow MicroSoft's lead, go ahead. I mean,
do you let the RIAA define "fair use," and all that as well?

MS will claim as much as is humanly possible, and then some. Why?
Because that way they can establish, by precedent, more ways to screw
end users out of their money.

I'm old enough to remember when companies began using the copyright
paradigm to protect software. A fair number of people thought that was
a bad idea, since copyright law was complex as it was. But still,
10-20 years ago, it was accepted that when you bought software, you
bought, and owned, a *copy of the software*. Of course, if that
paradigm had been followed rigorously, companies would have been
obliged to provide free copies to public libraries for fair use...

The classic example of this was Borland's "just like a book."
liscence. You could use their products just like a book. You could
loan your purchased copy to a friend, and he could use it, but only if
it weren't installed on your system (and in use) as well. Quite simple
and effective. Pity it never took off.

Point being that the principle was that you purchased, and owned, a
copy of the code, in the same way you purchased a book or a magazine.
Of course, MS (and everyone else) made a point of including a liscence
which stated -basically- that the software was worthless, warranteed
to accomplish nothing, and if you used XXX software to manage your
business, and lost money, it wasn't their fault. If, however, the
floppies it came on were bad they would replace the physical media for
a nominal fee. On the other hand, if you WERE caught copying this
software (which, recall, was not warranteed for any "fitness or use")
you agreed that the XXX company had the right to carry off your
firstborn in compensation.

Now a few years ago (after they had cornered about 95%+ of the market)
MS realized that income from new sales had flattened out, and the only
way to keep revenue coming in was change how they could charge for
their software. That's when they dropped the original "buy a copy of
the code" idea and moved on to "buy a *temporary liscense* to *use"
their software." That way they can keep gouging people for updates,
especially when they drop support for older platforms.

Well, naturally they had to keep people from recycling all those
copies of older, but (in many cases) perfectly usable software. So
they decided to "limit" transferring software.

What I want to see is the specific statute that says Darren can't do
what he says he can. I don't care about how someone makes a living
agreeing with MicroSoft's interpretation of copyright law, I want a
specific citation, including a direct quote -from an actual statue-,
which says that MS can get away with that crap.

Aside from the fact that no one has taken Bill "I'm the richest man in
the world" Gates to court about it yet, that is.

On 02 Feb 2005 21:51:05 -0600, (Todd H.) wrote:

Refer to the license on the disk you posess for the exact wording of
the license terms. They vary slightly from release to release. But
I'll bet ya a dollar that you'll find it restricted to use on your
Dell system.

But, if you're the sort that needs a big cartoon-like graphic with an
orange X that says what you're proposing is illegal software piracy,
well, you're in luck:

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx



Best Regards,




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.