Matthias99
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2003
- 8,808
- 0
- 0
Okay... I don't want to jump into the flaming here, but there are essentially two separate issues being discussed:
1) Can MS sell you a 'license' for Windows that is legally bound to a particular computer (or the first computer it is installed on)?
2) Can such licensing be enforced solely by an EULA that you can only read once you've bought and started installing the product?
And it might help if the discussion is focused on one or the other. They're *not* really the same issue, although they both happened to come up together here.
My personal stance on this is that '1)' should be allowed if MS wants to market the product that way and they are clear about it, but '2)' is probably not going to stand up in court. If MS wants to sell a discounted OEM Windows that's (legally and/or activation/DRM-wise) locked to a particular computer, I have no problem with that, as long as they are clear about the terms of it up-front. I do not believe that users of software (or other IP) should automatically be granted the capability to resell that IP without restrictions, or to use it in any manner they 'feel' they are entitled to. Now, IANAL, and if a US federal court goes and rules that they are based on their interpretation of copyright law (or copyright law is changed to specify this), it's one thing, but until that happens we're all just talking opinions on this matter.
I'm not in favor of EULAs being binding contracts, but this is an area that DEFINITELY is in need of clarification legally. Copyright law starts to break down in a lot of areas once you are talking about purely virtual IP.
1) Can MS sell you a 'license' for Windows that is legally bound to a particular computer (or the first computer it is installed on)?
2) Can such licensing be enforced solely by an EULA that you can only read once you've bought and started installing the product?
And it might help if the discussion is focused on one or the other. They're *not* really the same issue, although they both happened to come up together here.
My personal stance on this is that '1)' should be allowed if MS wants to market the product that way and they are clear about it, but '2)' is probably not going to stand up in court. If MS wants to sell a discounted OEM Windows that's (legally and/or activation/DRM-wise) locked to a particular computer, I have no problem with that, as long as they are clear about the terms of it up-front. I do not believe that users of software (or other IP) should automatically be granted the capability to resell that IP without restrictions, or to use it in any manner they 'feel' they are entitled to. Now, IANAL, and if a US federal court goes and rules that they are based on their interpretation of copyright law (or copyright law is changed to specify this), it's one thing, but until that happens we're all just talking opinions on this matter.
I'm not in favor of EULAs being binding contracts, but this is an area that DEFINITELY is in need of clarification legally. Copyright law starts to break down in a lot of areas once you are talking about purely virtual IP.