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

[jvnn]

As if i need another reason to make sure my transition to Linux sticks _this time_.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: stash
No. OEM licenses by themselves are not transferrable. You can transfer the license provided that the hardware the came with the license is also transferred. That's my understanding, anyway.

I'm still trying to figure out this one:

Microsoft's web site discussing OEM System Builder licenses says that, quote, "In the case of OEM System Builder software and hardware, the EULA is between the System Builder and the end-user."
-----------------------------------------------------
The right to distribute Microsoft® OEM System Builder Software is governed by the Microsoft OEM System Builder license and covers areas such as how the software can be distributed, how it must be supported, and placement of the COA labels. This license is between the System Builder and Microsoft. This differs from the End User License Agreement - or EULA - which governs the end users? right to use the software. In the case of OEM System Builder software and hardware, the EULA is between the System Builder and the end-user. The EULA defines what end-user rights and restrictions apply to the use of the software and covers things such as how you can use the software, whether the license can be transferred, and downgrade rights.
---------------------------------------------------------
The obvious question is:
If the end-user's EULA agreement is between the SYSTEM BUILDER and the END USER, then how does Microsoft get involved in the EULA and set its own restrictions about re-activation and transfer of license to another PC? It'd seem that the SYSTEM BUILDER would be the one controlling use and activation of the software.

It seems like Microsoft is trying to have it BOTH ways. MS doesn't want any responsibility for support or warranty of OEM software, but still wants direct control over how the software is used. And, if I'm the SYSTEM BUILDER, how can Microsoft intercede on my behalf to deny re-activation to an end-user? That should be between ME and the end-user, according to Microsoft's policy.

Weird.

 

[BriGy86]

you should be able to buy a piece of software and install it on what ever machine you want and also be able to transfer it to which ever machine you want, as long as it is only running on one machine at a time

the only problem i see with it (im looking at it from a companies perspective) is that you wouldn't be able to squeeze every penny out of the consumer

the following quote seems to go along with what i was thinking

Originally posted by: scottws
I'm all for business being able to make a fair profit in the market, but I think fair is the key word there.

___________________

one analogy would be buying the same CD for every CD player you want to play that particular music on
(but i suppose that's the next step for the RIAA)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Tell them how you feel about this. Vote with your all mighty dollar. Go Free.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Tell them how you feel about this. Vote with your all mighty dollar. Go Free.

:thumbsup:
Already have

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Tell them how you feel about this. Vote with your all mighty dollar. Go Free.

im thinking suse or ubuntu
(i like KDE so maybe kubuntu)

some people say that ubuntu with the KDE package works better though

do you know of any sites that can explain the different management systems like apt-get, yum, and tar balls?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Tell them how you feel about this. Vote with your all mighty dollar. Go Free.

im thinking suse or ubuntu
(i like KDE so maybe kubuntu)

some people say that ubuntu with the KDE package works better though

do you know of any sites that can explain the different management systems like apt-get, yum, and tar balls?

apt-get and yum use the same basic concepts. tarballs are for stuff that isn't in your package manager (apt/yum/yast/whatever).

 

[BriGy86]

what ones would you suggest for newbies?

(feel free to point me to a linux help forum if need be)

i was looking around and linuxquestions.org seems to be a nice one

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
what ones would you suggest for newbies?

(feel free to point me to a linux help forum if need be)

i was looking around and linuxquestions.org seems to be a nice one

I haven't used Yum, but I think it's supposed to work just like apt . I don't mind redhat/fedora based systems too much (although I have issues with them when they don't conform to monkey standards v.1). Ubuntu seems to be a big seller these days. It even comes with Gnome. Which is like KDE, only without all of the options.

 

[doornail]

You know, this is a good healthy thread. Even if no one gets converted, I'm kinda happy to see people stepping back and taking an objective look at the whole consumer ownership vs. EULA/License/market-speak debacle.

Cheers.

 

[BriGy86]

i noticed they make Kubuntu (same OS only is uses KDE)

but reading some of the review it looks like people have better luck installing ubuntu and then applying the KDE package on the CD
(appearently there is a difference, i don't know the specifics though)

i like KDE myself, more of a windows feel

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: doornail
You know, this is a good healthy thread. Even if no one gets converted, I'm kinda happy to see people stepping back and taking an objective look at the whole consumer ownership vs. EULA/License/market-speak debacle.

Cheers.

the problem i see with linux is hardware support from vendors

i don't want to hunt through a shelf looking at all the model numbers to see only a few pieces of equipment that are compatable

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: doornail
You know, this is a good healthy thread. Even if no one gets converted, I'm kinda happy to see people stepping back and taking an objective look at the whole consumer ownership vs. EULA/License/market-speak debacle.

Cheers.

hte problem i see with linux is hardware support from vendors

i don't want to hunt through a shelf looking at all the model numbers to see only a few pieces of equipment that are compatable

I honestly don't recall the last time I worried about linux compatibility with a piece of hardware. Granted - my needs aren't very exotic, but it's just not an issue.

The only thing I've heard of that can be a problem are certain wireless adaptors

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Tell them how you feel about this. Vote with your all mighty dollar. Go Free.

im thinking suse or ubuntu
(i like KDE so maybe kubuntu)

some people say that ubuntu with the KDE package works better though

do you know of any sites that can explain the different management systems like apt-get, yum, and tar balls?

I prefer Fedora - I use it at home & at work. Has both Gnome & KDE - I use KDE.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: stash
No. OEM licenses by themselves are not transferrable. You can transfer the license provided that the hardware the came with the license is also transferred. That's my understanding, anyway.

I'm still trying to figure out this one:

Microsoft's web site discussing OEM System Builder licenses says that, quote, "In the case of OEM System Builder software and hardware, the EULA is between the System Builder and the end-user."
-----------------------------------------------------
The right to distribute Microsoft® OEM System Builder Software is governed by the Microsoft OEM System Builder license and covers areas such as how the software can be distributed, how it must be supported, and placement of the COA labels. This license is between the System Builder and Microsoft. This differs from the End User License Agreement - or EULA - which governs the end users? right to use the software. In the case of OEM System Builder software and hardware, the EULA is between the System Builder and the end-user. The EULA defines what end-user rights and restrictions apply to the use of the software and covers things such as how you can use the software, whether the license can be transferred, and downgrade rights.
---------------------------------------------------------
The obvious question is:
If the end-user's EULA agreement is between the SYSTEM BUILDER and the END USER, then how does Microsoft get involved in the EULA and set its own restrictions about re-activation and transfer of license to another PC? It'd seem that the SYSTEM BUILDER would be the one controlling use and activation of the software.

It seems like Microsoft is trying to have it BOTH ways. MS doesn't want any responsibility for support or warranty of OEM software, but still wants direct control over how the software is used. And, if I'm the SYSTEM BUILDER, how can Microsoft intercede on my behalf to deny re-activation to an end-user? That should be between ME and the end-user, according to Microsoft's policy.

Weird.

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).

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: scottws

Originally posted by: Matthias99
IMO (which is definitely only an opinion), I actually feel that all IP "sales" should actually be what are now referred to as "licenses" (unless you are actually buying/selling the rights to the IP itself), which addresses a lot of the problems you start running into wrt to copyright law and 'pure' IP. Of course, it raises new issues as well, and this would be a significant break from current copyright law.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree. To support such a shift would be essentially flushing a couple hundred years of hard fought consumer rights down the toilet.

I'm all for business being able to make a fair profit in the market, but I think fair is the key word there. They shouldn't be allowed to do whatever the heck they want by sidestepping consumer protection laws and the UCC - which is what software companies are trying to do with their EULAs.

Yep - it would pretty much completly gut it. Copyright law goes both ways - protections of IP holders, and protection of the public. By saying all sales of software is a license instead of a sale subject to copyright law, you remove all consumer protection. This is the defacto standard right now with the status of EULAs being substantially up in the air. I'm hoping it will come down on the side of consumer rights, as copyright is already heavily slanted toward the IP holder.

Chill out, guys. You somehow assume that because I think the current model of copyright law is flawed, that I want to go and remove all consumer protections? Yeesh. Cut me a little slack. :disgust:

One of the big problems with the current model of copyright law (as I see it) is that there is essentially zero meaning anymore to "owning a copy" of a piece of intellectual property when perfect or near-perfect "copies" of content can be made by almost anyone for far less than the original probably cost you. This made sense a hundred years ago (or, hell, even 20 or 30 years ago), when 'copying' anything substantial was either expensive, time-consuming, impossible, resulted in dramatically reduced quality, or all of the above.

IMO, what you are really "buying" when you "purchase" IP is the right to use that IP, with some restrictions (for instance, you can't redistribute it) -- for all intents and purposes, an implied contract that is defined (poorly) by current copyright law. If all such transactions were legally phrased like that, you could actually cleanly define what things you are and are not allowed to do with the IP, and you could require that such restrictions are made very clear up front. It eliminates a lot of these sorts of inconsistencies. That's what I'm saying, not that you should completely eliminate the right of first sale or fair use (or other consumer rights).

 

[BriGy86]

there have been a few times where i can't get it to work right with my NIC, but in both cases it was either on a laptop, or built into my motherboard

i could have been because i wasn't setting up correctly, but i would set it up the same way on another machine and it would seem to work fine

 

[scottws]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Chill out, guys. You somehow assume that because I think the current model of copyright law is flawed, that I want to go and remove all consumer protections? Yeesh. Cut me a little slack. :disgust:

One of the big problems with the current model of copyright law (as I see it) is that there is essentially zero meaning anymore to "owning a copy" of a piece of intellectual property when perfect or near-perfect "copies" of content can be made by almost anyone for far less than the original probably cost you. This made sense a hundred years ago (or, hell, even 20 or 30 years ago), when 'copying' anything substantial was either expensive, time-consuming, impossible, resulted in dramatically reduced quality, or all of the above.

IMO, what you are really "buying" when you "purchase" IP is the right to use that IP, with some restrictions (for instance, you can't redistribute it) -- for all intents and purposes, an implied contract that is defined (poorly) by current copyright law. If all such transactions were legally phrased like that, you could actually cleanly define what things you are and are not allowed to do with the IP, and you could require that such restrictions are made very clear up front. It eliminates a lot of these sorts of inconsistencies. That's what I'm saying, not that you should completely eliminate the right of first sale or fair use (or other consumer rights).

I see what you're saying, but if we shift from purchasing things under the guidelines of copyright law to licensing, we are at the mercy of the license agreement which we have already seen runs contrary to actual law in some cases and at best offers virtually zero consumer protection in the few cases where the EULA isn't that agressive.

As it stands know I am firmly against such a shift. If the government comes in, clears up what is and what is not legally binding with a EULA, then it might get better, but as-is the software companies basically have everyone by the balls. Software makers claim to be able to do anything they want with their EULAs: install things without your knowledge, bind you to future agreements which haven't even been written and that you will never see or explicity agree to, collect whatever information they want off of your PC, strip away other rights you normally have under consumer protection laws, the UCC, and copyright law.

The problem is the government has become to intertwined with business. It's corrupt, and self-serving. It's not a government for the people anymore. It's a government for business. We're going to get less consumer protection before we get more, and a shift to licensing agreements for everything is going to make things a whole lot worse for consumers.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: scottws
I see what you're saying, but if we shift from purchasing things under the guidelines of copyright law to licensing, we are at the mercy of the license agreement which we have already seen runs contrary to actual law in some cases and at best offers virtually zero consumer protection in the few cases where the EULA isn't that agressive.

If you make a change like this, you could actually define what protections can and cannot be removed by this sort of license agreement. Of course, you could probably do this without making such a drastic change, but it would still require some changes to copyright law.

As it stands know I am firmly against such a shift. If the government comes in, clears up what is and what is not legally binding with a EULA, then it might get better, but as-is the software companies basically have everyone by the balls. Software makers claim to be able to do anything they want with their EULAs: install things without your knowledge, bind you to future agreements which haven't even been written and that you will never see or explicity agree to, collect whatever information they want off of your PC, strip away other rights you normally have under consumer protection laws, the UCC, and copyright law.

(emphasis added)

This is indicative of a bigger problem in general with copyright -- what do you do when the wishes of the copyright holder and the wishes of the person who is 'buying' or 'licensing' the copyright conflict? What if it's not just motivated by 'greed', but the copyright holder won't make enough money to stay in business or turn a profit on their product unless they can restrict certain consumer "rights" (for instance, by implementing measures that restrict copying and redistribution to prevent piracy?) There are no clear answers to these questions, and this is an area that is NOT handled well under current copyright law at all.

The problem is the government has become to intertwined with business. It's corrupt, and self-serving. It's not a government for the people anymore. It's a government for business. We're going to get less consumer protection before we get more, and a shift to licensing agreements for everything is going to make things a whole lot worse for consumers.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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. 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.

Let me go back to what I said earlier. I'm all for business being able to make a fair profit in the market. But it has to be fair. The courts have already decided in many cases what is fair. It should be obvious to you by now that businesses don't agree and want more.

 

[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.

 

[Smilin]

Holy crap!

I don't know if I can keep up with the required reading for this thread!!! Everyone has been doing their homework!

I'll respond in a few (maybe)..

 

[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

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: doornail
You know, this is a good healthy thread. Even if no one gets converted, I'm kinda happy to see people stepping back and taking an objective look at the whole consumer ownership vs. EULA/License/market-speak debacle.

Cheers.

I'm now enjoying the debate when I was not before for some reason

 

[nweaver]

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