Microsoft Shuts Auction Doors On Old Windows 403
mrv writes "Microsoft is keeping a more-vigilant eye on online auctions of old copies of Windows software, with people trying to offload it due to the upcoming release of XP. Also within the story is info and tips for donating a computer (and software licenses) to charity. (Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!)" A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software). Time to go re-read what sellers of used software have had to say last year, and the MS method of shutting own eBay auctions.
a Realistic Threshold (Score:3, Insightful)
So with the obvious eBay incidents aside, I get the feeling you can quietly pirate your software to your heart's content, as long as you stay under the high-water mark.
my 2 cents.
Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:4, Interesting)
1. You [parent poster] are a bad citizen because you (rightly) suggest that people might get away with pirating MS products if you stay under a certian dollar threshold. It seems to me that you're merely passing on information, not telling anyone to start pirating.
But then...
2. You try to "sabatoge" competitors who take unfair advantage by blatently pirating software. Implication, you should do the "right thing". Stop turning them in, and start pirating software yourself. This would be the honorable thing to do.
A very intresting contradiction. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. That's slashdot.
Either you pirate software like your competitors do so you are not at a competitive disadvantage, or you "sabatoge" them..
But if you choose not to pirate, and to "sabatoge" your competitors who do, then you are a bad citizen because you rightly point out MS's lack of interest in cases under $50,000.
The tone of the parent post seemed to suggest the latter. (One of be honest, turn in competitors using unfair methods.) He didn't say to start pirating. He just said "I get the feeling...".
This is slashdot. We are anti-capitalist. In the future please observe the following. Be quite about your competitors illegal actions. Don't engage in piracy yourself. Suffer being at a competitive disadvantage. Keep your mouth shut about MS's inaction. There. That should keep slashdotters satisfied.
NOT (Score:3, Informative)
You are just talking out of your butt with nothing to suport it.
Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's my experience:
I needed to buy two copies of MS Visual Studio 6 Enterprise. I did an internet search for Visual Studio (using the M$ search button on the toolbar in IE 5) and the top listed result was www.office2000pro.com. So I go there and am amazed to find it on sale for $899 with free shipping, woohoo! One of my employees (who does a lot of purchasing for us) then makes a bet with me that he can beat the price by calling a person he frequently deals with a Micro-Warehouse. I take the bet. They can't beat the price and she wants to talk to me. She says that the software is likely pirated and I shouldn't buy it and I should report the site to M$. I tell her it was the top search result and to report them herself and she gives me some line about how I should do it so I can get rewarded by M$ (pfft, yeah right). My bullshit/FUD-o-meter is dinging away at this point, so I decide to check for myself. So I tell her I'll call her back if I find out it's a pirate site.
I call up the M$ pirate line and give them the URL www.office2000pro.com and tell them the almost half-price rate for VS6 Ent. The guy tells me he's taking down the info, checks the site himself, and tells me 80-90% of the M$ software sold online is pirated. So I ask him to tell me whether this site is legit. He claims they will have to check it out. I say fine, here's my email contact me when you guys decide if they are legit, because if they are, I want to pay the $899 price instead almost twice that. He says they can't contact me to let me know, it's some other division that does the checking, yada, yada, yada, and feeds me some bullshit.
Well by this time I figure if M$ doesn't care enough to contact me to keep me from purchasing pirated versions of their software, I don't really care if it's pirated either. So I wait a couple weeks to see if the site stays up so I won't be ripped off, and sure enough it's still there. So I buy the software and it promptly arrives in nice shrink-wrapped boxes and surely looks legit to me. I haven't tried to register it yet so I guess I'm not sure it's legit, but it looks the same as my registered version (only newer).
Anyway my point is, this seems like it might be:
1) Price fixing amongst all the people that sell M$ software and one company decided not to go along
2) M$ has some "special" deal with this site because they move super high volume or sell only M$ software.
3) A pirate site that M$ is too lazy to prosecute (but if their client list is for real, they're likely WAY over $50,000 in sales).
4) It's a front for M$ to sell their software online at a big discount and get a lot of direct sales with a BIG restocking fee (30%) without pissing off their sales partners or their big corporate clients for gouging on the restocking fees.
Or maybe it's something else altogether, I dunno, but if you want to buy M$ software cheap, www.office200pro.com has the best prices I've seen and the shipping is free and it's been over two months since I reported them and they've not been taken down yet, curious...
Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:3, Interesting)
And keep in mind while the BSA sends out it's threat letters all the time, it rarely ever follows up on any of them. it's a scare tactic. No good press would be won by Microsoft trying to prosecute a church group in court for using windows 95 on their donated pentium 133's, or the non-profit trying to improve inner-city literacy rates on those same sorts of systems.
If you are a reseller who pawns pirated software off on your customers so you can undercut the market, then by all means you should be busted. You may have higher ideals than I do when it comes to this, but I also have to put food on the table for my kids.
but that's a digression from the point of the article
Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:3, Insightful)
I have this funny feeling at least one of Microsoft's legal staff is reading this that happens in the mood to set an example about how strict copyrights can get.
I'd imagine with a world with too many lawyers, some get bored and like to investigate the damnedest things. Do you feel lucky today?
By definition... (Score:4, Informative)
Similarly, even William Mossberg (of the WSJ) seems to think that it is onerous of Micros$oft to require home users to purchase a copy of the (M$) OS for each home PC that they wish to run that OS on. That has _always_ been required (with the specific exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as long as I can remember.
I am not happy about Microsoft's licensing policies, but some of these complaints are pretty bizarre in my ears.
sPh
Re:By definition... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:By definition... (Score:2, Interesting)
> exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as
> long as I can remember.
Borland's licence used the "like a book" model. You could install the software on as many computers as you wanted, but you could only use one copy at a time, just like a (paper) book can only be read by one person at a time.
It was an interesting system. I run a 100% Microsoft-free system here, so I have no recent Borland products to look at to see if they've changed it in recent years.
Sort of. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they refused to take the return, does the EULA that I did not agree to hold valid?
Re:By definition... (Score:3, Interesting)
With Windows, you're dealing with software from a source other than the manufacturer of your machine. This isn't all that different from the earlier years...when I built my first x86 box about ten years ago, I bought DR DOS 6.0 separately (more goodies than MS-DOS 5.0).
(FWIW, the final versions of ProDOS 8 and GS/OS are still free downloads from Apple's FTP site. The only snag is that they're archived in a Mac-only format. Grr.)
What if... (Score:5, Funny)
Seems to me that the best answer here is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (Score:2)
What would be a free ISP application for Linux? What would be a free web based mail application which also lets you use client based access like Outlook Express and Hotmail? What would be an AIM program for linux which lets you send files?
This is currently being written in Win2k on Vmware on Linux, because of the above problems (namely the first one).
Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (Score:3, Informative)
seriously...what the hell are you running windoze through vmware for when all these things exist natively?
Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and this really irritates the CRUD out of me! Like most
To me, this is one of the most objectionable parts of this sordid little tale. All the guff about "pre-loaded software" sounds very nice, but where on earth do I go to get a pre-built PC without pre-loaded software?!? If I want a nice, plain, simple little PC which I can use for testing various distros, for example, I don't know of any place I can go to buy one without a pre-loaded OS from Microsoft. How does this not qualify as extortion?
I think it's high time that PC manufacturers gave you the capability to order an OS as an option. I can go to Dell's web site and check off whether or not I want a monitor; why not an OS? Imagine how silly it would be if I had to buy a monitor, when I can instead just buy one monitor and use a KVM switch. Why can't I buy a PC from Dell (or HP, or IBM), choose the "no pre-loaded OS" option, and then go down to the local bookstore and pick my favorite Linux packaging off the bookshelf?
And just how did this ridiculous practice become not only commonplace, not only de rigeur -- but accepted unquestioningly?
EULAs worthless in Germany (Score:3, Informative)
So for everyone who wants to sell his old license: Look for your german mates and let them do the ebay.
Re:EULAs worthless in Germany (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you or somebody give a reference to more info about the legal situation in Germany? Is it completely legal to sell OEM licenses separately? Does Microsoft agree on that, or do they still hunt people who do so?
Re:EULAs worthless in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
The situation was this: A german computer distibutor got problems with Microsoft where Microsoft claimed, the distributor was selling not licensed preinstalled Windows. Microsoft claimed, that the distributor was selling CD-ROM and Book with different computers and thus selling every license twice.
So Microsoft stopped the contract with this distributor, and the distributor was not getting OEM licenses anymore.
Then the distributor was starting to bid for not used OEM licenses on eBay and resold them with his computers instead of directly licensed software from Microsoft. Microsoft brought the distributor to court for violating license agreements in the OEM EULA, which included a non reselling clause.
The federal court ruled, that those clauses are only valid for the original licensee, that is the computer dealer, who sold the first computer with this license. But it is not legally binding for anyone else, including even the buyer of the first computer. And as long as there is no technological difference between the software, that comes with the different licenses, there is no right for Microsoft, to controle the distribution ways for the different licenses.
The federal court stated, that there is "no way to deduce from Copyright a right to control distribution channels."
Re:It's because there is no copyright in germany. (Score:4, Insightful)
NO. Copyright is only a right to control the first distribution channel, as established by the Supreme Court in a case dealing precisely with second-sale of books. The law is (q.v. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/ chapters/2/sections/section_202.html [findlaw.com]:
or, for a readable-English account of what this means, see http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/copyown/copyown_8.htmRe:It's because there is no copyright in germany. (Score:3, Interesting)
So it is technically at least half-right to declaim,
Shrinkwrap licenses? (Score:2)
Re:Shrinkwrap licenses? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shrinkwrap licenses? Defraud by the Mfr? (Score:4, Funny)
I see an advert for Dull Komputers, model 1000, includes Memorysuck Windows 99
I buy computer, not having to sign anything.
I power it up and run it for a couple years.
I decide I've seen the Plaid Screen '0 The Banshee too many times and opt for an alternative O/S
I wipe the hard drive, and install my other O/S
I take the CDROM and shrinkwrapped license and put it up for sale on Peoples Soviet Stalinistic Auction Site
I'm informed in a-not-so-polite way that my sale violates the terms and conditions of use for the license and software I have
Seems to me that barking at Memorysuck, Inc. and the auction site are the end of the line, which began with Dull Komputers announcement that I was getting the O/S, as part of the product, the sold. I should be able to sell off any part, as I owned it, right? Power supply, monitor, disk drive... seems whatever came with it is a component and should have been clearly stated if it was not, i.e.
Of course there's the slight problem of... I replace the HD, I replace the MB, I replace the case, I replace all the cards, hey, it's a completely different computer! I must be in violation, eh?
Just my 3.5 cents (adjusted for inflation) and by the way IANAL.
I delt with this. (Score:3, Interesting)
When they arrived, all I got was the books that have the authenticity cert on them. Each one had the "For distribution with a new PC only. NOT FOR RESALE" stickers partially remmoved. There went 260 down the drain.
You got what you paid for... (Score:2)
Perhaps using NT's not in your best interests if you can't afford it through more legit channels...
Re:I delt with this. (Score:2)
Re:I delt with this. (Score:2)
What do you mean that 286 isn't a new PC? It's new to me!!!
"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:5, Insightful)
- A.P.
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:2)
sPh
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about property rights of the buyer, aka right of first sale?
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:2)
Which doesn't apply to copies of the original, no? Right of first sales gives you the right to re-sell the original, not make a photocopy for yourself and sell the original.
Yes, I am aware of the problem with preloaded copies, which Microsoft seems to think are more like banannas than actual objects. That's a different discussion.
sPh
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:2)
Except that basic rights of sellers would fall under the "doctorine of first sale". At least they would with real physical property.
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:3, Funny)
Would it be even better if I put a disclaimer that it wasn't to be used for actual installation on a computer?
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:3, Insightful)
But the EULA isn't valid for so many reasons I won't begin to list them all. *If* they showed you the license before you bought the software it might be different.
This isn't quite right... (Score:5, Informative)
That may be true but that's not what the article is about:
Charmaine Gravning, a product manager for Microsoft's Windows XP, said the policy is clear that people cannot sell or even share the software that comes pre-loaded on computers. If a consumer buys a copy of Windows in a store, they can resell the software, provided they include the license agreement, and all other documentation and don't try to sell multiple copies.
The issue here is cutomers trying to resell their bundled system software when they upgrade. If you upgrade to Linux, you're still not allowed to resell the bundled OS.
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Interesting)
They do that to be sneaky. Blah. If you paid for a computer w/an MS product installed you paid for Windows someway, somehow.
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Somehow, an agreement I never signed on to is preventing me from selling the software? Where did I concent to this contract? That's the gap in the logic. Send forth the lawyers.
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's part of the MS philosophy that however they proclaim the world works, must actually be the way the world works - and they'll crush anyone who says different. This whole idea of 'bundled software' is, remember, something that MS just made up to cut prices on mass orders to distributors while still being able to prosecute 'piracy' in the future. Imagine if a publisher sold OEM 'bundled' books which a customer couldn't resell after they read them.
If it were a book, or pretty much anything else, you'd say "what a crock". But since it's software and most of you've been bludgeoned about the head with propaganda stating "this is the way things are because we say that's the way things are", a good many people have actually come to believe that software is, in some strange fashion, actually different from other commodities.
It isn't. Certain corporations and industries would like us to believe that, since it results in an ecology of artificial scarcity which drives up prices. But this ecology is, indeed, *artificial* and completely imaginary; it has nothing to do with real-world scarcity of any kind. If software were licensed like a book (use it, resell it as you would) then some small amount of profit would be lost; but more importantly, *people wouldn't automatically give credence to bizarre and nonsensical EULA's*. They might actually start asking a few pointed questions concerning pricing and idiotic use restrictions.
Companies bent on turning a profit on artificial scarcity can't have the sheep questioning the system, now can they? Give those damned consumers and inch and they'll take a mile!
Max
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Insightful)
The telling word is Charmaine Gravning's use of "policy." That's all this is: Microsoft's policy, which eBay happens to be cooperating with. It's a matter of MS policy, not copyright law, and not contract (EULA) law. It's just Microsoft's will and desires, which they are successfully imposing upon. As with many things, the solution is simply this: Just Say No.
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I bought my new Toshiba laptop last month, the seal on the box had large type stating the enclosed software operating system is sold with the unit, cannot be seperated, and may not be subject to a refund, except for the whole unit.
Since I bought a laptop, I was legally required to buy Windows and it would be illegal for me to sell it, unless I sold my laptop with it. Great free country we live in, eh?
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoa, whoa. You were not "legally required" to do anything. It's just that the party you bought that laptop from, offered no other options. You could have purchased some other laptop from some other, more reasonable, party. (Assuming there are any.) There is obviously nothing in the law that says people who buy laptops must buy MS Windows.
This has not been established. Microsoft doesn't want you to sell it, and eBay complies with their wishes in that regard, if you try to use eBay to sell it. That is all. Copyright law is what determines if something is "illegal" or not, and it doesn't appear to say anything about this issue.
Email the seller a question when you see (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does Microsoft care about 5-year-old software anyway? I think they want to prevent people from selling used software so others have to buy the latest and greatest from Microsoft."
Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me. If users want the latest (and greatest?) Windows OS, they'll still have to buy it anyway. Newer software will not run on the old OS's eventually, rendering it useless.
They're really overdoing it with re-selling old ssoftware. Even the RIAA does not seem to mind secondhand CD's in the marketplace.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Saved myself $10 and S&H.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Maybe because the 5 year old software, which is prefectly good for many real world tasks, would otherwise be in competition with the new stuff they are trying to push.
When your product is close to indestructable (be it software or diamonds) you don't want a thriving second hand market.
So, what's MS' excuse then? (Score:3, Funny)
If that's the case, why's MS so keen to kill the second hand market- it's definitely NOT "indestructable"...
Microsoft don't want you running old versions (Score:2, Insightful)
Apart from all the valid points contributed so far about ownership etc. I'd also point out that...
MS don't want you running old software, they want you to buy new software, and then pay to upgrade, and pay to upgrade it continuously.
New MS software in one area tends to force you to use new software elsewhere (XP ? Better upgrade to Office XP as 2000 is being phased out and might have problems. And IE6, as 5 may not run properly. Oh, and that include WMP, maybe you'd better buy something else too) - its called locking in the users and raiding their wallets.... and thats the part of their business model that I find unethical.... (wanna run IE, its free, but the new version with the bug fixes needs a new version of windows)
T
A Question of Depreciation (Score:3, Interesting)
So, since these licenses cause the software to become value-less, is this sort of depreciation of software in line with accepted accounting practices?
If I'm a small business owner, can I depreciate the MS software that I purchase and thereby offset income and capital gains on my tax return?
I just wondered, because, IIRC, there are strict rules on how this can be done for real property, etc.
Re:A Question of Depreciation (Score:2)
If I'm a small business owner, can I depreciate the MS software that I purchase and thereby offset income and capital gains on my tax return?
Umm, why in the world would you want to do that? When you purchase the software you should take the entire cost off as an expense. Depreciation only spreads that cost refund over a number of years, which would be a fairly stupid thing to want to do (I guess if you plan to be in a higher tax bracket in the coming years you could try though. Ask you tax advisor if you really care. Chances are you'd only save a couple dollars and would risk an increased chance of an audit, though).
Re:A Question of Depreciation (Score:2)
My (UK-based) accountants have always treated PC software as a consumable, rather than an asset, precisely because of the difficulty of realising any value from its sale at a later date. Consequently, it's written off within the same year as it's purchased.
Consumed within 1 year. Interesting.
If old software continues to provide value to me, though, I think I would be less inclined to "upgrade" to expensive new software.
OTOH, it does seem that old software degrades in general interoperability as time proceeds. But given that software doesn't change one bit, I have to blame the environment of "new software" for the apparent deterioration of my "old software".
Come on MS, take one for the team... (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, if a person wants to DONATE a computer/software to a charity, or a school, I think MS ought to shut their collective legal yaps and let the charity/school get what productivity they can out of the thing, gratis. Nailing the Red Cross or a rural elementary school $100US for a 6 year old version of Win95 borders on criminal...I mean, how many BILLIONS does Gates and company really need?
So long as schools and charities are not using their software to pirate or commit crimes, MS ought to make themselves into a shining white knight and give their OS away to them. They do that, and the govt' will suddenly seem like the bully, rather than MS.
Re:Come on MS, take one for the team... (Score:2)
Not exactly a software licence is neither the law nor above the law. If there is a statute or court ruling which says "Thou may resell anything thou has bought". Then it's the software producer who has a bitter pill to swallow.
N.B. these kind of things tend to be written to the (usually correct) assumption that people don't know what rights they have granted to them by law. (Sometimes you will find a clause staring "Except where prohibited by law..." which is a CYA clause for something which may be legal nowhere.)
sales of used CDs is legal though (Score:2, Interesting)
EULA's (Score:3, Interesting)
Summers
Re:EULA's (Score:4, Informative)
I really don't understand why BMG lets them get CDs but I guess the ones that don't pay are a lot less than those that actually do.
New Oxymoron (Score:2, Funny)
Besides Microsoft, among the other 2,000 VeRO members include Adobe, Warner Bros, Vanderbilt University and the Hard Rock Café.
Hard Rock Cafe Intellectual Property?
Dosen't matter, Microsoft lost their Copyright. (Score:2, Interesting)
While this has not be challenged in court, and it would be a tough battle. According to the letter of the law, Microsoft can not challenge copyright infringement on any of their products included in the antitrust case, since it used its copyright for antitrust purposes.
This would not cover XP.
Re: (Score:2)
If only charities... (Score:2, Insightful)
If only charities could find the time and know-how to use open source, they could save a lot of money, and direct the saved funds into their work.
Maybe tech-savvy people could donate know-how, instead of money in this case.
Although, AFAIK Microsoft does offer some sort od discount for charities.
Great Quote (Score:4, Funny)
"The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft," said Kay.
Win2K EULA About Transfer (Score:2, Informative)
Here's Win 2K EULA excerpt about transfer of license:
Transfer to Third Party. Initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, 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 Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
Now, Microsoft may condemn people on the auction site as the seller cannot assert the buyer agreement to the EULA. Then, M$ can say the seller cannot assert that the buyer will not resell the software. All in all, this EULA does NOT rigorously govern on how the software may be resaled. Thus, M$ can bend this to their significance.
IANAL, but be careful on this issue.
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, even if you're upgrading from an old PC to a new PC and you want to use your copy of Windows 98 on this new PC, you're still required to pay for a copy of Windows XP that you can't get rid of? And if someone wants to get some new life out of an old PC, he's not allowed to have a copy of Windows 95 unless Microsoft lets him buy it from them (yeah right), even if you have an extra legal copy you're not using?
And what's more, Microsoft appears to be strong-arming the issue to get even more leeway. The article [yahoo.com] says that Ron Faul was selling two copies of Windows 95 and that Microsoft had eBay shut down the auctions; it doesn't say that these were preinstalled copies. I especially like this quote: "The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft."
Years and years and years of court cases against Microsoft, from their killing DR-DOS back in the early 1980's by spreading Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt all the way up to their killing Netscape in the late 1990's by 'cutting off their air supply,' and they're still powerful enough to pull trash like this -- Bill Gates is probably laughing his head off at the all-bark-no-bite of the American legal system.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Depends where you get the machine from. If it's one of the "big boys" who have enguaged in the illegal deals then yes. If it's a smaller supplier who is paying close to the retail price then they are likely to be happy to omit a component they make no money on.
MS - Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
#1 - a lot of the software in question can NOT be purchased new any more, so its not like MS is missing out on a Win95 sale - there's plenty of legitimate uses for old Win9x OS, esp if you have a machine that has limited RAM or CPU (ie my toshiba libretto, a P75 with 16MB). IE no loss. So why spend the $
#2 - people buying used OS's are not buying them to get the disks. Come on, everybody and their brother has a CDR and will burn you off a copy of the Windows cabinet files. I'd like to see a geek version of Survivor, where we get dropped into a foreign country and have to come up with a CDR filled with Microsoft Juarez as quickly as possible. It would be a half-hour show, unedited. Point: people are buying these things on EBay because they want to be quasi-legitimate, ie "I should buy a copy of the software that I use!". Remove that as a possibility, and how many people are really going to spend $150 on an OS for a $150 computer? Arrr, Billy, time t'uh fire up me CDR!
#3 - Given that many computer buyers pay extra for their copy of Windows (ie, it was an option for $100 or so - most system builders do this in the US, yes?). If I pay extra for a feature, can I not sell it off seperately? I (as joe computer buyer) didn't sign or agree anything beyond that flimsy click-through contract at startup, and who's to say it was even me that set up the computer instead of my 7 year old daughter?
I can't see this being a smart idea. All it does is make M$ look bad, and encourage those who want to go legit but don't want to buy, or cant use, the latest OS, to pirate.
Smart move, Billy....
Re:MS - Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I have about half a dozen of these loaned out to various people who needed a new hard drive, or had to reinstall for whatever reason. The fact that they didn't get media, or they got a Win98 upgrade disk but no 95, means they would have to go out and buy a NEW MS OS for £100+ to run on an old P100 32Mb RAM. They wouldn't.
MS should either sell win95 CDs in supermarkets for £20, or let you sell your copy for what you like. A current OS is perhaps a different matter - they have to make a living you know!
It's not win95 sales they're worried about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's biggest competition comes from its own obsolete software. They're not worried that they're losing the profits from a win9x sale, they're worried that you're choosing to use a copy of YAOS (for values of YAOS != M$OS.current_version), thus depriving them of a sale of WinXP. If they can reduce the supply of all obsolete versions of their software, then it's more likely that joe user will pay to license the current version.
Oh, and I'm sure that Intel would agree with them that since you can't legally get a copy of win95 anymore that it's time to upgrade your hardware as well...
Hooray for Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
We should all be thankful to Microsoft for tracking down these criminals. People like this are a menace to modern society. Microsoft employees have seen their stock options slide significantly in recent months, a cause of considerable stress for them. People who freely give away computers or sell for peanuts on auction sites - often without the proper licenses and documentation - these people are no better than thieves. Schools, charities for homeless people and orphanages are all implicated in this evil trade, which is causing some Microsoft employees to turn gray with worry. Well done Microsoft, you are a role model for us all.
Upgrading... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really found myself smiling at this. Isn't the idea that if you're upgrading that you have to still have the original licence?
For example.... with Dreamnweaver 3, when the user of that damn softawre in my company was given a new computer, part of the installation procedure was to type in the licence key for Dreamweaver 2. Okay, so this is really just to avoid people buying an upgrade when they aren't upgrading, but I think it's valid enough.
Tom.
Ok, question for the masses (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).
In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.
Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.
Re:Ok, question for the masses (Score:2)
Depends where you are. A German court ruled that the OEM/retail distinction was a nonsense. Depending exactly why they ruled this might apply to the entire EU anyway.
Re:Ok, question for the masses (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's meant by "that PC"? Do I need a new license for each part I replace? If not, then if I've replaced everything (either over time or wholesale), then I should be able to use that license on the improved "old" machine.
Gets kinda sticky, doesn't it?
It's easy!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Or, then again you could do what I did:
Pirate DOS+Win3.1 -->
OS/2 v.3.0 -->
Slak w/linux kernel v.1.2.13 -->
FreeBSD
What does the future hold? I advise everyone to upgrade to Plan 9 NOW! When Plan 10 or 11 come out, you are not going to want to be the last person on the block to have it.
Seriously, you are not 31337 if more than 20 people use your OS.
Actually, scrap that, your best bet is to port NetBSD to that wind-up Mickey Mouse watch you've had since you were a kid.
-Peter
It's a boring day, with slow news... (Score:2)
... and this triggers the automatic MS bashing procedure at slashdot. I just remember that I read something like this [slashdot.org] just about two weeks ago.
Software is different than hardware and is easily cloneable. You can sell software for free like Linux, but you hardly can do that with hardware. So different rules apply here, i.e., if EULAs tell that you cannot resell that piece of software, so be it. The money you paid MS is only a right to use, not a right to sell (in most cases, but there are also scenarios where you can really "sell", i.e., transfer your right to somebody else).
Re:It's a boring day, with slow news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also I really don't see were I would want to stop people from selling my game if they wanted. Obviously they could keep a copy and sell the original which would bother me, but I wouldn't want to punish honest users, especially in MS's case when the honest user has actually paid money for an upgrade so you know he isn't using the software anymore.
Of course I also wouldn't get up in arms if they wanted to install my game on more than one computer, as long as they owned the computers, but most companies today seem to mind that as well. It seems ashame that parents should have to buy two copies of a game if two of their children with two seperate computers both want the game.
First Sale (Score:4, Informative)
Re:First Sale (Score:3, Insightful)
If you sold your copy of Windows NT and bought a new full retail copy of Windows XP, I don't think MS would mind. If you sold your NT and only bought a cheaper "upgrade" to XP, then there is a problem, since you no longer have a right to run the upgrade. That's the core of the matter.
MS ain''t the only ones... (Score:2, Interesting)
And this doesn't make them a monopoly? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a computer that comes pre-installed with Software, use it for a year or two, I should be able to sell it lock, stock and barrel.
It's how I buy a car, furniture, music, or anything else I have. I sell off or trade in my old crap to finance the new stuff. Maybe if Microsoft would offer trade-ins on the old stuff they wouldn't have to whine so much on the sales of older software. I for one would be willing to trade in my old copies of Win 3.1, 3.11, and 95 disks for some newer stuff.
Goran
Re:And this doesn't make them a monopoly? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, just to clarify... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to know what my rights are here.
I recently spent about $1000 on PARTS for a complete system which I put together myself. I went back to the same store a week later, looking to buy an original copy of Windows 2000, and the guy sold me an OEM (no receipt, cash only) on the basis that I'd basically bought a system there the week before. I think he sold it to me for $280CDN. Fine.
I've since stopped using Windows 2000 (long story) on my PC, and since I wasn't using the OEM at all, I figured I'd get rid of it on eBay. I was completely unfront about my item in the auction - mentioned that it was an OPEN OEM copy, and that it had the original manuals, certificate of authentication, etc. and that I was no longer using it on my PC. Lo and behold, eBay pulled the auction about 12 hours later.
I guess my question involves rights. Did Microsoft + eBay have a right to pull my auction? And, if so, why?
Mark
mpytlik@home.com
E-bay has the right (Score:3, Informative)
Good to live in good old Germany :-) (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the press notice in German:
http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/Entscheidungen/presse
The Solution (Score:2, Funny)
It is untraceable, secure and a sweet feeling to boot.
Re:The Solution (Score:3)
Ahhh...NOW I see (Score:2)
If a minor can't be bound by the terms of a Piece of Software's (PoS?) contract, *and* is probably the only one in a household capable of *installing* the thing, it makes perfect sense.
Same thing with HDTV: "You have every right to 'time shift' the content...that is legal, as soon as you try to excercise that right...out come the cuffs/lawyers/MP|RI-AA."
Warning, Mixed Metaphores ahead...
So Microsoft is using an ounce of prevention (on ebay) to extract a pound of flesh?
Moose.
Coasters for Sale? (Score:5, Funny)
"For Sale: Genuine Windows 98SE DRINK COASTER. Not for use as operating system. CD only included. Rendered useless for data retrieval by placement in PROTECTIVE SLEEVE. Please do not remove coaster from protective sleeve. $10."
Basically, it's just like everyone does with their AOL CDs, only this time don't glue felt on the back.
-Rothfuss
Not authorized to sell old windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, You must be living in that funny country across the big pond.
Here in Europe, basic consumer rights say that you can sell whatever you leagally paid for, including software, even if the EULA says otherwise.
If microsoft doesn't like that, they can come and battle with the EU governement, or stop selling their products out here.
Roger.
Experience selling bundled copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, I received a copy of Windows NT 4.0 workstation with my copy of Visual C++ I purchased in college. I attempted to sell just the NT 4.0 workstation CD (with key, and thus its license). I never installed the CD on any of my machines, so I thought it would be ok.
MS contacted eBay and my auction was immediately shut down for "illegal goods". When I asked eBay customer support the reason, they said that Microsoft claimed I was selling the CD without a proper license. I said to them I was selling the CD with its associated license, and I had never installed the software. They said to contact Microsoft, which I did and it was never resolved.
To this date I harbor no ill will towards MS or eBay (I've completed dozens of other auctions without issue, and for what eBay does [getting a ton of people to look at your auction], it does well). Still, I can't imagine what it'll be like in the future.
Auction for cardboard box / Win98 included free! (Score:5, Funny)
As a special bonus, the winner of this box will receive Win98 OS for their PC, free!
Bidding for the box starts at $10 + $5 shipping.
Microsoft Ebay policy = ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
My only real recourse to this action would have been to actually sue Microsoft. Unfortunately I do not have the time to sue Microsoft over a small matter, especially given that they could likely blame the software and get away on technicalites.
This incident was what really pushed me away from Microsoft. I have had mixed opinions about the company for a very long time, and over the years moved away from Windows anyway, but when they pushed me around with legal muscle, I decided to just walk away for good. Of course, it worked out well in the end, as I now get to enjoy Apple's OS X.
Bill Gates angrily clarifies EULA (Score:5, Funny)
Responding to recent events on Earth, Bill Gates, the creator of the omniscient Windows, used by billions of computer users worldwide, angrily clarified His license agreement today.
"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again" said Bill, visibly angry.
"Somehow, people keep getting the idea that I don't mind them giving away or reselling copies of Windows. Well, I do mind. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only can you not copy or give away Windows, but you can't resell a copy bought from an OEM. I don't care if you're a school, a charity, or a damn orphanage, the rules apply to you."
"I don't care how poor you are, or how much you need a copy of Windows. If someone tells you I don't mind you making a copy, they're wrong. Got it? I own it all, ok? It's all there in the license agreement. It all belongs to me. You mean nothing to me. You bunch of fucking loosers."
And he sniggered.
Re:How barbaric. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How barbaric. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've heard this said over and over again, but it's simply not true. You are buying a CD with an installer on it. As long as you obtained that CD legally you have the right to install it on your computer and use it, unless you give up that right some other way. You do not need a license to install and run software, just like you don't need a license to read a book. You only need a license to copy, distribute, or create a derivitive work. While installation involves copying, it is exempted by copyright law as long as you follow certain rules (basically, you have to have purchased the copy legally and cannot install it on more than one computer at a time).
Same as early records... but look at them now. (Score:3, Informative)
Those restrictions went into the dustbin of history.
Even earlier, books used to have the same restrictions. You could not sell them, loan them to others, etc. Benjamin Franklin, that radical, really shook up a lot of people when he created public libraries that lent books to anyone who asked.
Again, those early restrictions went into the dustbin of history.
Off the top of my mind, I think *every* new media has started out with this "you don't own the material, you only lease it, and you can't transfer or sell your right to access it" crap. Or worse, the time-restricted variant like that unlamented "Div-X" DVD format.
Software is no exception. It's only because of our collective short memory that Microsoft is currently getting away with this... and the RIAA and MPAA are trying to revive the same crap that our great-grandparents defeated.
NOBODY is claiming that the $200 you pay for a retail copy of Windows gives you the right to duplicate it and sell it to others. But that is ALL copyright is intended to stop - prior to copyright laws it was common for publishers to reprint and sell books published by others, without any compensation to the owner or original publisher. And even that "abuse" wasn't totally unreasonable prior to the development of good distribution channels. (This was done even before canals were first built, when transportation was always extremely expensive because it involved mule trains on muddy roads that where often unpassable.)
Re:hmm.. (Score:2)
At least if I read the article correctly that's the way it works.
This has little to do with piracy... (Score:2)