More Microsoft Crap- Buy a new motherboard, buy a new license

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I never thought about it that way but you make a really good point. AFAIK Microsoft is the one that's pushed the strict re-activation hassle (I usually go around it by using the SLP pre-activated key, but still annoying).

Keep in mind why this was at all necessary. When they looked around and saw a VAST number of pirated copies out there they realized something had to be done. Overseas it's insane. There are more pirated copies than legal ones!!

The activation process us typically painless. It's only a hassle for people that do lots and lots of upgrades and get past the automatic activation limit. I'm quite sure if Microsoft had their choice they would get rid of the whole thing. Maintaining the activation servers and call centers isn't free you know.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: nweaver
yeah...I think this can be summed up by saying "current IP/copyright laws suck and need fixed"

The DMCA especially.

With software the big consumer right that needs protected is: You should always be able to return it for a refund if you don't accept the terms.

Keep that in place and no other problem is unsolvable.

 

[scottws]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: scottws

Originally posted by: Matthias99
If you operate under the assumption that the government is corrupt and will never do anything good for consumers, then I don't see how you could possibly make any progress. In that case, any change at all is invariably going to be bad for consumers.

Likewise, if you operate under the assumption that the U.S. government is good and is not corrupt and is looking out to protect its citizens from greedy businesses and unconscionable business actions, you're misleading yourself.

And that's not what I said either.

Anyway, I can't think of many big recent law changes or court cases that leaned in the favor of consumers. I mean you have the DMCA, which utterly rapes a lot of consumer rights that previously existed. You think the government consulted their citizens to find out what they thought of it? I don't think so. That was purely businesses pushing the DMCA through.

Yes, much of the DMCA is crap that was forced through by businesses that were scared to death of what they were seeing happening on the Internet.

Look, all I'm saying is that if you assume that changing everything over to licensing is going to be somehow better for everyone, I think you're living in some sort of alternate happy, ideal dimension or something.

I think that it could at least be clearer in terms of how the laws are defined, and also strike a good balance between the interests of IP owners and consumers. Like I said, this is not the only possibility, but the current legal situation is IMO not a very good one.

Because in this world, if you let businesses decide what you can do with what you bought in every case, you aren't going to get granted any rights whatsoever. Certainly not first sale and fair use rights.

OTOH, you can't say that content owners get no say about how people use (or abuse) their IP, either. Content providers are already scared to death to release unprotected digital content (software or otherwise), since it shows up on BitTorrent about five minutes after it's released (assuming it's not leaked somehow beforehand). It doesn't do you much good to have unlimited rights to IP if nobody finds it worthwhile to actually create any IP. There's a balance in there somewhere that has to be maintained, and changes in computer technology in the last 20 years have thrown old notions of copyright out of whack.

Matthias, I agree with you. IP does need to be protected, and it's reasonable to expect that IP-holders will want to protect their content and make a fair profit of their IP. I also agree that something has to be done.

However, moving to a licensing structure for everything is not the answer. I agree that protections could be defined by the government. They've already done that in the past with decisions that make up the UCC. However will they continue to protect consumers? It's hard to say. It just looks like it's all headed in the wrong direction from a consumer standpoint, and assuming that everything will just work itself out and be beloved patriot dory if we move to licensing I think is being a bit naive.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Keep in mind why this was at all necessary. When they looked around and saw a VAST number of pirated copies out there they realized something had to be done. Overseas it's insane. There are more pirated copies than legal ones!!

My take on the Microsoft OEM problem:

Starting YEARS ago, Microsoft wanted to increase its market penetration, so it started offering inexpensive OEM copies of Windows to large manufacturers (Gateway, Dell, et al). Even though this software WASN'T SUPPOSED to be transferable, Microsoft had no practical way to enforce it, since Product Activation didn't exist. Similarly, Microsoft had no way to detect pirated copies of its software.

After 2000, Microsoft began using Product Activation. This allowed detection of pirated and (improperly) transferred software, as long as Activation was required. HOWEVER, Microsoft chose to allow large OEMS to include BIOS-LOCKED software that never required Activation. As consumers bought more and more brand-name computers, eventually much of Microsoft's current software base didn't require Activation (as long as it stayed on the original computer). And even if the software was moved to a different PC, Microsoft allowed Online Activation.

Then, pirates found that they could "steal" the COA keys from Dell, Gateway, and HP computers, and started selling software using those stolen keys. Microsoft became concerned about lost profits as well as its image.

In 2005, Microsoft decided to finally ENFORCE its OEM license policies. It began denying Product Activation when it found that OEM software had been moved from its original PC. Consumers became outraged.

The public relations and legal problems now are:

1) Consumers aren't able to do what they'd always been able to do before: move their OEM software to a new PC.
2) Consumers are becoming aware of the EULA agreements (that most had never seen, and certainly hadn't read) and aren't happy with the terms.
3) In a legal battle, you could argue that:
a) Microsoft is demanding too much with its EULA
b) Microsoft hasn't made the original Purchaser fully aware of his "Agreement" with Microsoft or the OEM Manufacturer
c) Microsoft has never enforced its transferability clause before, so has lost the right to enforce it now (akin to Trademark owners not enforcing their Trademark rights and losing their rights)
4) Microsoft's attempt to dynamically CHANGE its EULA on already-sold software (especially the Office 2003 SP2 changes that came from another lawsuit) is legally iffy.

 

[squirrel dog]

I dont know why so many people support open source software .

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
I dont know why so many people support open source software .

Depending on your definition of "open source software":
Licensing is typically easier.
We can modify the programs if we want/need to.
The programs are free and do what we want.
We can't get sucked into a hole if a closed source company dies (we still have the software, it can continue to grow).
We don't have to put up with closed proprietary crap, and can typically pick up our data and move to another solution if a better one comes along.

 

[squirrel dog]

I was being sarcastic . This is quite the thread with a lot of usefull information .

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
I was being sarcastic .

I figured you probably were. After I posted.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: stash

Originally posted by: Zebo
Windows 2000 edition FTW!:thumbsup:

Never saw a reason to move to kiddified/automated XP - doubt I will for "Vista"

This has nothing to do with the version of Windows. 2000 OEM licenses are not transferable either.

Never read it but I've installed my copy of 2000 pro on about 70 motherboards w/o an issue. Will you be able to do that with vista even as a practical matter?

 

[spyordie007]

If you have a volume license, yes.

 

[squirrel dog]

The harder MS pushes the public at large on this issue,I feel the worse for MS from a pr standpoint.I see so many bright young people in IT,its just a matter of time before open source goes point and click/plug and play.Once most anyone can use it,MS will have to rethink its marketing structure/strategy.Just my 2 cents.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: smack Down
Like you said Buy.

You can license software putting on the self at wal-mart is not licensing it that is selling.

ok, "buy" a license.

You know what I mean. Don't be the devils advocate

You can't buy a license it doesn't even make senses.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: smack Down
You can't buy a license it doesn't even make senses.

Okay, well, neither does "buying a copy" of a piece of software, depending on your perspective.

Think of it this way: basically, MS is selling pieces of paper that say "the bearer of this paper is entitled to run one copy of Microsoft Windows XP, using license key <x>, with the following restrictions...", which come with installation CDs for the OS.

The question (which there does not appear to be a real clear answer to) is whether those restrictions can include things like "you cannot give or sell this piece of paper to someone else" or "once you install the OS on a system, you may not transfer it to a different system". And if it can, then there is a question of whether such restrictions can be enforced based solely on a post-purchase EULA.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: scottws
Matthias, I agree with you. IP does need to be protected, and it's reasonable to expect that IP-holders will want to protect their content and make a fair profit of their IP. I also agree that something has to be done.

However, moving to a licensing structure for everything is not the answer. I agree that protections could be defined by the government. They've already done that in the past with decisions that make up the UCC. However will they continue to protect consumers? It's hard to say. It just looks like it's all headed in the wrong direction from a consumer standpoint, and assuming that everything will just work itself out and be beloved patriot dory if we move to licensing I think is being a bit naive.

I didn't mean to imply that just moving to a licensing-based copyright structure will fix all the world's problems.

The question of "what rights do you have on content you 'own', and how and when can content holders restrict those rights?" is separate from how the laws actually define the relationship between content providers and consumers. You can have laws defined in terms of "ownership" that are extremely consumer-unfriendly, and you can have laws defined in terms of "licensing" that are extremely consumer-friendly.

I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about "owning a copy" of a piece of IP, and the laws would be better framed in terms of IP being 'licensed' rather than 'sold'. IMO, this would provide a more consistent view for intellectual property that potentially has no physical form, and would allow for more flexibility in terms of how IP is marketed. It does not, however, actually answer any of the questions about consumer rights.

 

[xtknight]

Microsoft is just selling you a ticket so you can use their OS. How's this any different from a baseball game? They don't sell you the game, they sell you a ticket to watch the game.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: scottws
Matthias, I agree with you. IP does need to be protected, and it's reasonable to expect that IP-holders will want to protect their content and make a fair profit of their IP. I also agree that something has to be done.

However, moving to a licensing structure for everything is not the answer. I agree that protections could be defined by the government. They've already done that in the past with decisions that make up the UCC. However will they continue to protect consumers? It's hard to say. It just looks like it's all headed in the wrong direction from a consumer standpoint, and assuming that everything will just work itself out and be beloved patriot dory if we move to licensing I think is being a bit naive.

I didn't mean to imply that just moving to a licensing-based copyright structure will fix all the world's problems.

The question of "what rights do you have on content you 'own', and how and when can content holders restrict those rights?" is separate from how the laws actually define the relationship between content providers and consumers. You can have laws defined in terms of "ownership" that are extremely consumer-unfriendly, and you can have laws defined in terms of "licensing" that are extremely consumer-friendly.

I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about "owning a copy" of a piece of IP, and the laws would be better framed in terms of IP being 'licensed' rather than 'sold'.

What doesn't make sense about "owning a copy of a piece of IP". That's the way copyright has worked since the beginning of the idea isn't it? If I own a copyrighted book - I own a copy of that intellectual property. Since I don't own the copyright itself, my rights with regard to that copy are limited - fair use, first sale, etc. The owner of the copyright has a different set of rights - principally the right to distribute that IP as they see fit.

It just seems to me that moving to a "license" scheme where companies choose what rights consumers are given (possibly subject to government limits/regulation) is at best unnecesary and at worst very detrimental to the consumer.

IMO, this would provide a more consistent view for intellectual property that potentially has no physical form, and would allow for more flexibility in terms of how IP is marketed. It does not, however, actually answer any of the questions about consumer rights.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: smack Down
You can't buy a license it doesn't even make senses.

Okay, well, neither does "buying a copy" of a piece of software, depending on your perspective.

Think of it this way: basically, MS is selling pieces of paper that say "the bearer of this paper is entitled to run one copy of Microsoft Windows XP, using license key <x>, with the following restrictions...", which come with installation CDs for the OS.
.

But I don't need MS premission to use the OS if I have a copy of it. The piece of paper is meaningless because I already have the right to use the included CD.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: smack Down
But I don't need MS premission to use the OS if I have a copy of it. The piece of paper is meaningless because I already have the right to use the included CD.

Well, sure, you can run the installer, but good luck installing it without a valid license key. You don't need anything else once they've sold you a license.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about "owning a copy" of a piece of IP, and the laws would be better framed in terms of IP being 'licensed' rather than 'sold'.

What doesn't make sense about "owning a copy of a piece of IP". That's the way copyright has worked since the beginning of the idea isn't it? If I own a copyrighted book - I own a copy of that intellectual property.

This idea at least sort of makes sense if creating more 'copies' of the IP is difficult or impossible (which, until fairly recently, it basically was), and you always sell IP by the "copy". That is not necessarily the case anymore, and it's certainly not the only conceptual model that can be used.

It's equally valid to look at the book-buying transaction as one where you purchase the rights (which happen to come with a copy of the IP), instead of one where you purchase a "copy" (which happens to come with certain hazily specified rights).

If you take your book home and scan it into your computer -- you now have "two copies" of the IP, but your rights haven't changed. Print it out and you now have "three copies" (one electronic, two on paper), but you still have the same rights. Handing one of those copies to someone else doesn't endow them with any particular rights (and in fact violates the copyright holder's rights unless you are entitled to distribute the work), so why attach such importance to the "copy" itself?

Since I don't own the copyright itself, my rights with regard to that copy are limited - fair use, first sale, etc. The owner of the copyright has a different set of rights - principally the right to distribute that IP as they see fit.

Should the copyright holder be able to limit any or all of those rights?

It just seems to me that moving to a "license" scheme where companies choose what rights consumers are given (possibly subject to government limits/regulation) is at best unnecesary and at worst very detrimental to the consumer.

The problem is that how the laws are currently phrased works very poorly in a lot of situations that didn't exist when the laws were written (which was, in some cases, a very long time ago).

Rephrasing the transactions in a different way could eliminate a lot of the uncertainty in situations like one with Microsoft's OEM licenses. Don't like the rights the IP comes with? Don't buy it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: smack Down
But I don't need MS premission to use the OS if I have a copy of it. The piece of paper is meaningless because I already have the right to use the included CD.

Well, sure, you can run the installer, but good luck installing it without a valid license key. You don't need anything else once they've sold you a license.

First of all can not be solf a license. A licenses is a transaction in and of it self.

Valid license keys are easy to find on the internet and post and using them breaks no law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about "owning a copy" of a piece of IP, and the laws would be better framed in terms of IP being 'licensed' rather than 'sold'.

What doesn't make sense about "owning a copy of a piece of IP". That's the way copyright has worked since the beginning of the idea isn't it? If I own a copyrighted book - I own a copy of that intellectual property.

This idea at least sort of makes sense if creating more 'copies' of the IP is difficult or impossible (which, until fairly recently, it basically was), and you always sell IP by the "copy". That is not necessarily the case anymore, and it's certainly not the only conceptual model that can be used.

It's equally valid to look at the book-buying transaction as one where you purchase the rights (which happen to come with a copy of the IP), instead of one where you purchase a "copy" (which happens to come with certain hazily specified rights).

If you take your book home and scan it into your computer -- you now have "two copies" of the IP, but your rights haven't changed. Print it out and you now have "three copies" (one electronic, two on paper), but you still have the same rights. Handing one of those copies to someone else doesn't endow them with any particular rights (and in fact violates the copyright holder's rights unless you are entitled to distribute the work), so why attach such importance to the "copy" itself?

Because it is called copyright. That is the only right that is resrvered for the copyright holder. The right to limit other people from making and selling copies.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: smack Down
But I don't need MS premission to use the OS if I have a copy of it. The piece of paper is meaningless because I already have the right to use the included CD.

Well, sure, you can run the installer, but good luck installing it without a valid license key. You don't need anything else once they've sold you a license.

First of all can not be solf a license. A licenses is a transaction in and of it self.

Uh... I think you tried to say something resembling:

"A license cannot be sold. A license is a transaction in and of itself"

I would disagree, basically. The end result is the same if you "buy the rights" or you "buy the copy and the copy includes certain rights", but the former one IMO leads to laws that are clearer and easier to understand, and fewer uncovered situations. Basically, a sale of IP would always establish a contract -- it basically does already, except the terms are defined in a bunch of copyright laws that don't always apply in useful or particularly clear ways.

Valid license keys are easy to find on the internet and post and using them breaks no law.

I think that "using a license key you didn't pay for breaks no law" is gonna be a tough sell in court. "Distributing my license key freely breaks no law" is also something I would have to violently disagree with.

"transferring a license key to/from someone else breaks no law" might fly, but freely redistributing or downloading and using someone else's license keys is equivalent to stealing or giving away copies of the OS.

Because it is called copyright.

The name is rather irrelevant. My point is that there is no need for any particular significance to be attached to a physical or electronic "copy" of the IP, although current copyright law is phrased this way.

That is the only right that is resrvered for the copyright holder. The right to limit other people from making and selling copies.

...which is exactly what MS is doing.

 

[smack Down]

I think that "using a license key you didn't pay for breaks no law" is gonna be a tough sell in court. "Distributing my license key freely breaks no law" is also something I would have to violently disagree with.

"transferring a license key to/from someone else breaks no law" might fly, but freely redistributing or downloading and using someone else's license keys is equivalent to stealing or giving away copies of the OS.

Well your wrong. What law could be violated by posting numbers on line. It isn't a trade secert. And you can't copyright it because it is not artisitic.

Just because MS doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal.

 

[imported_taku]

yeah purchased a gateway and paid extra for windows 2000 pro. $200. when board or cpu died a year later tried to use on an ASUS motherboard. mope . error. not a gateway motherboard.

over $3000 down the drain. never buy another retail box or oem software from dell, gateway etc.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: taku
yeah purchased a gateway and paid extra for windows 2000 pro. $200. when board or cpu died a year later tried to use on an ASUS motherboard. mope . error. not a gateway motherboard.

over $3000 down the drain. never buy another retail box or oem software from dell, gateway etc.

WTF? See I would have bought or stole a real copy that could be installed on anything instead of trashing $3000 computer..