I agree, that would be nice to see.Originally posted by: mechBgon
From my career as a bicycle mechanic, I learned was that it's not enough to say OMG I SEE A PROBLEM!!!11!!, unless I also have solutions to offer. Otherwise I'm just a dog in the manger. :roll: So I'd be curious to hear what the objectors in this thread think is a viable alternative to the existing licensing model. Do they want Microsoft (and Cisco, and Nero, and Roxio, and every other OEM software maker) to grandfather every OEM license into full retail at no cost, or what do they want?
In this contract claim, the plaintiffs are alleging that the contract creates a right not existing
under copyright law, a right based upon defendants? agreement to the EULA and TOU with Blizzard.
The Court agrees that the contractual restriction does create a right not existing under copyright law.
The right created is the right to restrict the use of the software through the EULAs and TOU. ?Absent
the parties' agreement, this restriction would not exist. The contractual restriction on use of the
programs constitutes an extra element that makes this cause of action qualitatively different from one
for copyright.? Id. at 433. Therefore, the Court finds that the EULA and TOU are not statutorily
preempted by the Copyright Act.
The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC. First, the defendants
did not purchase the Blizzard software, rather they purchased a license for the software. A sale
consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2-106(1) (2000).
When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the software. Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this
term.
Under the first sale doctrine, "a sale of a lawfully made copy terminates a copyright holder's
authority to interfere with subsequent sales or distribution of that particular copy." Adobe Sys. Inc.,
84 F.Supp.2d at 1089 (citations omitted). "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." Id. Section 117 of the Copyright Act provides that copies of computer programs may
be "leased, sold, or otherwise transferred . . . only with the authorization of the copyright owner." 17
U.S.C. § 117(b).
To apply the first sale doctrine and the exceptions of § 117, there must
be an authorized transfer of ownership. Either a licensee can never be
the owner of a copy for purposes of § 117 or ownership of the licensed
copy depends on the terms of the license agreement. First, it must be
determined what are the express terms of the contract? When license
terms provide that ownership of the copy remains in the copyright
owner, they preclude the transfer of title to the copy of the license.
Raymond T. Nimmer, LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY: RIGHTS LICENSES LIABILITIES § 7:69 (3d
ed. 2003)
Originally posted by: spyordie007
If it's an OEM license they should be only selling it w/ hardware.Originally posted by: BriGy86
and i don't need to purchase any kind of hardware along with it?
Originally posted by: Smilin
A Zealot is someone with absolute unshakable belief in something AND that refuses to stop talking about it. You are a Zealot. I've never seen a discussion with you that didn't end up being some huge assed annoying crock of ******. You've been living under a rock somewhere for the past few months why don't you go crawl back under it. I can't believe I actually said something nice to you in another thread. I completely regret it because you haven't changed a bit. If we were all contestants on survivor and it came time to do the big voting circle or whatever I would cast my vote then promptly walk over and kick you square in the nuts repeatedly until you passed out. You are more annoying than the next fifty most annoying people on AT combined. I swear someone replaced your liver with a hoover vacuum because there is no other way you could suck so much. Do us all a favor, go sit in a corner and stab yourself repeatedly until the suck drains out of you. If I get banned for flaming your instigating ass so be it. Never in history since Al Gore invented the internet has there been such an annoying person so deserving of an ass chewing. In summary I hate you. STFU. Die.
Actualy, Microsoft just made the rules for OEM XP and Office 2003 more liberal. if the OEM software is SEALED, you can sell it without hardware to a System Builder (including an individual who will build his own PC).Originally posted by: spyordie007
If it's an OEM license they should be only selling it w/ hardware.
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
The whole idea of software being legally "married" to a particular piece of hardware is a complete and utter FARCE.
Imagine if car dealers tried the same tactic - "Upon delivery of your new vehicle, it is 'married' to your particular driveway. If you move your place of residence, or even repave the driveway, you must purchase a NEW vehicle. The old vehicle will automatically be removed by the automotive license repo man".
Originally posted by: DasFox
OEM or not that is CRAP!
GOD, forgive me God for using your name, but AHH I really wish one of you genius coders out there would FREE us from the M$ world of BS and make a better OS for us!
At this point in time I wish at least all developers of software would start supporting Linux.
ALOHA
Nothing physically prevents you from using the same version of Windows on the same computer, with only one component swapped (just per chance it happens to be the motherboard). If you want to be ultra extremely 150% super legal, you can send Microsoft another $120 or so, but I guess that's up to you.Originally posted by: Throwmeabone
I am getting a new motherboard tomorrow. Will I be able to use the same Windows XP I have now?
Originally posted by: xtknight
Seriously...just stay on-topic and there won't be a problem. No need to resort to all that. Despite your knowledge I think you swear way too much on these forums. He dislikes Microsoft, you like Microsoft, so be it. I guess you should just stop there then. Just try not to be like this guy : http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html (meant as a joke) I don't think anybody here has anything against you.
Followup - I sent an email to Anand suggesting that this might be worthy of a news story.Originally posted by: gsellis
Like I said, not my experience, but for a definitive answer, why don't we ask the AT reporting staff if it is worthy of their time to investigate?
Originally posted by: Zebo
Windows 2000 edition FTW!:thumbsup:
Never saw a reason to move to kiddified/automated XP - doubt I will for "Vista"
Originally posted by: mechBgon
So I'd be curious to hear what the objectors in this thread think is a viable alternative to the existing licensing model. Do they want Microsoft (and Cisco, and Nero, and Roxio, and every other OEM software maker) to grandfather every OEM license into full retail at no cost, or what do they want?
Now, I don't know if Microsoft's EULA states this or not (I never checked), but some EULA's state that by agreeing to the EULA, you are agreeing to all future revisions which are subject to change without notice.Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Remember that new rules and EULAs do NOT change an old EULA that you already agreed to when you installed the software. But if you upgrade the software, you may be "required" to agree to a new EULA to obtain the upgrade. I'm not saying I agree with this concept, but this seems to be Microsoft's viewpoint.
Sure you can. Why not? If it's retail just uninstall it and sell the thing. If it's OEM, just sell the computer it's bound to.Originally posted by: doornail
Q) Can I re-sell my copy of Windows?
A) Under the doctrine of first sale yes, according to a "wish list" that momentarily pauses my install process, no.
Originally posted by: Smilin
Sure you can. Why not? If it's retail just uninstall it and sell the thing. If it's OEM, just sell the computer it's bound to.Originally posted by: doornail
Q) Can I re-sell my copy of Windows?
A) Under the doctrine of first sale yes, according to a "wish list" that momentarily pauses my install process, no.
Keep in mind the "doctrine of first sale" only applies to actually selling something. Windows is not being sold here, just a license to use it.
I think Kibbo probably said this best:
"[customers] don't want to be told 1 year after the purchase that there are limitations to the service they originally bought."
Folks get a great deal when purchasing OEM but they never seem to scratch their heads and say, "Why is this deal so good? What is the catch?". No such thing as a free lunch right? It's not that OEM is a bad deal it's just that peoples expectations about it detatch from reality because nobody wants to read legal mumbo jumbo. I blame the lawyers for this and most of the world's problems.