Windows licensing and multiple computers you own

mateo · Mar 16, 2003

Please keep this non-warez.

The strongest reason IMHO for the XP registration thing was computer shows etc selling many PCs using the same copy of Windows, which is a violation of the license. How do you guys think this applies ethically to the individual? Is it wrong to use the same copy of an OS on all your personal systems? Just because a license is there doesn't necessarily mean that it is just, yet is using the same copy of Win2k on your folding farm (I dont have one- Im just using an example) stealing from MS?

Titan386 · Mar 16, 2003

Well, I think that people ought to respect the license. If you feel the license is overly restrictive, there are plenty of alternatives out there. If you insist on Windows, then you've got to pay for Windows.

Cjwinnit · Mar 16, 2003

Use Linux instead. Breaking EULA's isn't ok.

mateo · Mar 16, 2003

LOL Im not asking for my own advice, Im posing a theoretical question. I guess my point is if you feel the EULA is too restrictive, is it right to break it? They are terms that are arbitrarily set by a company, it is not a contract (I dont think).

whooping_a_panda · Mar 16, 2003

i can kinda side with ms on this one and i can kinda not, i mean i see where they loose a lot of money this way, but if buy a loaf of bread can that loaf of bread only go into one toaster? maybe the bread companies should make registration mandatory and issue one liscence/loaf per toaster... it gets kinda rediculous

Avatar28 · Mar 16, 2003

Well, supposedly, according to everything I've read, it wasn't so much to stop large scale pirates. They knew it wouldn't likely help much their. They were more interested in stoping casual copying. Where a guy buys a new version of Windows and then burns off a copy of it for his buddy or puts it on all of his computers. Basically wanting to stop joe six-pack from copying it.

blackhabit · Mar 16, 2003

shh... I wouldn't say that too loud around here if I were you. Mods aren't likely to like that

ok then i just toast lol

Disco_Stu · Mar 16, 2003

I would be willing to bet M$ makes most of thier cash from OEM lisences and corporations. I think that they are an evil money hungry corporation and I don't agree with thier business practices or thier EULA's. And I would bet my kidney that it will get worse in the future. But that's American economy for you, and what can you do about it?

Either play by thier rules or use something else like Linux.

Disco_Stu · Mar 16, 2003

blackhabit said:
edited by cw823 lol

shh... I wouldn't say that too loud around here if I were you. Mods aren't likely to like that

DaveSauce · Mar 16, 2003

but if buy a loaf of bread can that loaf of bread only go into one toaster?

Yes, but if you put it into another toaster, after you have toasted it on one toaster, then it will be burnt, no?

Heh, well anyway....If you buy something, then you are bound to the EULA until you give up ownership of the product. All EULAs contain a stipulation that says to return the product if you don't agree to the conditions. If you don't return the product, then you agree. If you click the button that says "I agree," then you agree.

Frankly, it's not yours to decide if the EULA is too restrictive. Were Microsoft a monopoly, then there would be issues. However, they are not. There are alternatives. So if you don't agree to the windows EULA, then get linux or a mac.

Avatar28 · Mar 16, 2003

well, first of all good luck returning the product. very few places will accept a return on the software once it's been opened. Secondly, it's pretty much been ruled by the courts that so called click-thru agreements are not enforceable.

Malpine Walis · Mar 16, 2003

First, EULAs are pretty specific on what you can and cannot do. For those who never read them, you may be surprised what may be allowed. Simply assuming that the OK button is there to be clicked as a legal requirement tells you nothing of your actual rights.

I read EULAs before I click them and I have found that they often offer surprising permissions. For example, my visual studio EULAs allow me to install the software anywhere I want, provided that only one person uses the environments at a time.

That being said, I share the common dislike for product activation. Microsnot did not feel the need to collect cash for every install when they were on thier way to world domination. Thier lame CD key system was only useful to the extent that people chose to remain on the honor system. Product activation, IMHO is not about preventing piracy. It is about reaching the top of the field and having no other way to increase profits for the shareholders.

Avatar28 said:
well, first of all good luck returning the product. very few places will accept a return on the software once it's been opened. Secondly, it's pretty much been ruled by the courts that so called click-thru agreements are not enforceable.

Got linkage?

Avatar28 · Mar 17, 2003

I'll try to find it, but I know I've seen it mentioned in several places that. Here's one.

http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm

Did Zeidenberg violate the terms of the shrink-wrap license agreement, which expressly stated that copying of the software and the data (the telephone listings) may be done only for individual or personal use and that distribution, sublicense or lease of the software or the data was prohibited? The court again said no. Copying of the data was clearly prohibited by the license agreement. But the court refused to enforce the agreement. The court stated that the terms of the Select Phone license agreement were not presented to Zeidenberg or any other purchaser at the time of sale. The only reference to the agreement was a statement in small print at the bottom of the package that said users were subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed license agreement. Zeidenberg did not have the opportunity to inspect or consider the terms of the license. The court did not think that mere reference to the terms at the time of the initial contract formation -- forking over payment at the check-out counter -- presented Zeidenberg with an adequate opportunity to decide whether the license terms were acceptable or not. Zeidenberg had to have been given the opportunity to read and consider the terms in their entirety at the time of initial contract formation, which the court said was the time the retail transaction was consummated. Under Section 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the court held that the license agreement terms contained inside the Select Phone package constituted additional terms to which Zeidenberg did not agree, nor have the opportunity to agree to, upon the initial agreement -- payment at the check-out counter in exchange for the copy of the software. Further, the court held, even if the agreement were enforceable, copyright law would pre-empt the provision of the agreement prohibiting copying of the uncopyrightable telephone listings.

Molybdym · Mar 17, 2003

The whole activation thing freaks me out, in the Big Brother kinda way. But I agree, there are other options out there, if you don't like it, take your ball and go home(not directed to anyone here). But, come on, if I was running another computer in my house, I'd have no ethical issue with using the one copy. Now if I had like 10 or 15 rigs, that poses an issue.

mbigna · Mar 17, 2003

loner said:
Please keep this non-warez.

The strongest reason IMHO for the XP registration thing was computer shows etc selling many PCs using the same copy of Windows, which is a violation of the license. How do you guys think this applies ethically to the individual? Is it wrong to use the same copy of an OS on all your personal systems? Just because a license is there doesn't necessarily mean that it is just, yet is using the same copy of Win2k on your folding farm (I dont have one- Im just using an example) stealing from MS?

I just wanted to get back to the original question and premise that small businesses at computer shows are "selling many PCs using the same copy of Windows, which is a violation of the license."

It should be made clear that the XP license is separate from the media. Microsoft didn't copy-protect the O/S CD's for a reason: They wanted to save money on media. They decided that keys in conjunction with WPA (Windows Product Activation) would be used to control licenses. It is entirely legal for a PC maker to use a single CD (original or not) to copy the O/S to a multitude of computers. What is NOT legal is to use the same KEY on each of these computers--unless it is a corporate key being used within the same corporation. In this case, all the individual licenses have already been paid for in advance by the corporation.

Small businesses who put together grey market PC's in small numbers may purchase individual license keys without media. These keys are far less expensive than licenses that include media.

Additionally, MS does not provide media (or support, for that matter) for OEM's like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. These manufacturers press their own "restore disks" that usually don't offer all the additional features of a retail O/S disk. Further it allows each OEM to offer and install (whether you want it or not) all the software, ad-ware, spy-ware, and advertising on their own computers however they want, without giving you the opportunity to opt out of anything or customize the install the way YOU want.

mateo · Mar 17, 2003

Re: Re: Windows licensing and multiple computers you own

mbigna said:
I just wanted to get back to the original question and premise that small businesses at computer shows are "selling many PCs using the same copy of Windows, which is a violation of the license."

It should be made clear that the XP license is separate from the media. Microsoft didn't copy-protect the O/S CD's for a reason: They wanted to save money on media. They decided that keys in conjunction with WPA (Windows Product Activation) would be used to control licenses. It is entirely legal for a PC maker to use a single CD (original or not) to copy the O/S to a multitude of computers. What is NOT legal is to use the same KEY on each of these computers--unless it is a corporate key being used within the same corporation. In this case, all the individual licenses have already been paid for in advance by the corporation.

Small businesses who put together grey market PC's in small numbers may purchase individual license keys without media. These keys are far less expensive than licenses that include media.

Additionally, MS does not provide media (or support, for that matter) for OEM's like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. These manufacturers press their own "restore disks" that usually don't offer all the additional features of a retail O/S disk. Further it allows each OEM to offer and install (whether you want it or not) all the software, ad-ware, spy-ware, and advertising on their own computers however they want, without giving you the opportunity to opt out of anything or customize the install the way YOU want.

Thanks for the correction, tho the spirit of what I meant still remains.

My point is, you buy a product, you OWN that product, correct? Legality or illegality aside, is it right for a company to dictate the use of a product that SOMEONE ELSE owns? I do understand how it may affect business, too (If I sound biased, sorry, Im trying to keep a balanced open mind as of now), but is it not infringing upon the rights of individuals to use their property as they please (as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, of course)?

Disco_Stu · Mar 17, 2003

What about in the future when they don't even sell you a CD? You buy a number, and then you d/l everything from a M$ site. Then you don't own anything, thus they can force you to upgrade at thier mercy. Or else they turn off your OS.

It's entirely possible, and XP activation is a step in that direction.

mateo · Mar 17, 2003

Disco_Stu said:
What about in the future when they don't even sell you a CD? You buy a number, and then you d/l everything from a M$ site. Then you don't own anything, thus they can force you to upgrade at thier mercy. Or else they turn off your OS.

It's entirely possible, and XP activation is a step in that direction.

That's when TCPA/Palladium initiatives are implemented in full force, and I go Linux, and abstain from the Internet, if forced to.

Lets focus on current situations

Ridenow · Mar 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Windows licensing and multiple computers you own

loner said:
Thanks for the correction, tho the spirit of what I meant still remains.

My point is, you buy a product, you OWN that product, correct? Legality or illegality aside, is it right for a company to dictate the use of a product that SOMEONE ELSE owns? I do understand how it may affect business, too (If I sound biased, sorry, Im trying to keep a balanced open mind as of now), but is it not infringing upon the rights of individuals to use their property as they please (as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, of course)?

I think you may have just stated the core of the debate. MS says you do NOT own the product. They say that you buy the license as in you lease the product. They still own it, you are a renter. This is a very intersting concept and very debatable in it's merits.

Please, be careful what is posted. You can say that you do not agree with a EULA, but please do not say that you disobey it. If someone appears to advocate something illegal then I have to get the keys.

moorcito · Mar 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Windows licensing and multiple computers you own

loner said:
My point is, you buy a product, you OWN that product, correct?

That's what the EULA was trying to get around. You might have bought the CD/Game/Movie/etc., so you can say that you own the box, the inserts, the plastic CD, but according to the EULA the company owns the content and let's you use it according to their rules, and for a small fee (whatever it cost to buy the item).

That said, it stands to reason that if you buy a product you own a product, but then enter the realm of "intellictual property" and ownership is a little harder to define. There's no argument that you can own a tangible object, it's the intangible that causes a problem.

Legality or illegality aside, is it right for a company to dictate the use of a product that SOMEONE ELSE owns?

Click to expand...

Yes, and no. Take credit cards for instance, you have an agreement that you signed saying that you would use a certain way, but once the way that you use it violates that agreement you are in for boatloads of trouble. Somethings have to have their use dictated, or bad things can happen. But, on the other hand, when you buy a hammer there's no agreement that says you have to use it solely as a hammer.

I think software is different because someone else created it, and controls the ownership/use, unless it was given the GNU, or other license.

This debate only arises when it comes to intelectual property, though. It is easy to buy a CD or video, copy it and give it to your friend, but try to do that with almost anything else, ie a hammer. You might lend it out, but unless you have a StarTrek replicator, you can't give someone else another hammer while keeping the original.

Windows licensing and multiple computers you own

Member

Senior Member

B&

Member

Mr Slave Senior

No, I showered

Member

Member

Member

Member

No, I showered

Disabled

No, I showered

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Sneaky Moderator

Member

Similar threads