I guess that it will also prevent users to run a high tech two-players interactive game such as :
Wonko
Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:09 AM
Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:44 PM
Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:35 AM
We two must be the same person from mirror universes.
We two think too much alike, though we have mostly opposite opinions.
Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:35 PM
Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:12 PM
If you ring MS with an OEM Product Key they will tell you to contact the manufacturer.
OEM licences/keys cannot be transferred to any other system. You can't even upgrade the motherboard in an OEM system.
This judgement from the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) in 2012 should help clarify the legal situation.
http://curia.europa....t=1&cid=5213884
They ruled that once sold, the rightsholder (i.e. Microsoft) exhausts their rights of distribution and the purchaser has the right to subsequently sell the software (along with the right to use it, without which it's worthless).
I in fact just activated a COA OEM key over the phone (automated) with Microsoft on a non-original motherboard with no SLIC, which Microsoft can obviously see as MGADIAG shows this information, so it seems Microsoft are aware that this ruling makes it unlawful for them to interfere with the right to use legally owned software (I'm in the UK).
EDIT: This writeup summaries the judgement if you can't be bothered to wade through it
http://www.techdirt....-you-cant.shtml
Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:19 PM
This judgement from the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) in 2012 should help clarify the legal situation.
http://curia.europa....t=1&cid=5213884
They ruled that once sold, the rightsholder (i.e. Microsoft) exhausts their rights of distribution and the purchaser has the right to subsequently sell the software (along with the right to use it, without which it's worthless).
I in fact just activated a COA OEM key over the phone (automated) with Microsoft on a non-original motherboard with no SLIC, which Microsoft can obviously see as MGADIAG shows this information, so it seems Microsoft are aware that this ruling makes it unlawful for them to interfere with the right to use legally owned software (I'm in the UK).
EDIT: This writeup summaries the judgement if you can't be bothered to wade through it
You say the system had a non-original motherboard - did it have any components that were original? What were the circumstances?
The ruling refers to resale of software (licenses). MS have always allowed you to sell your OEM Windows PC+OS to someone else - I don't see that the ruling you cited is relevant to locking MS OS's to systems?
Posted 31 July 2013 - 11:17 PM
You say the system had a non-original motherboard - did it have any components that were original? What were the circumstances?
The ruling refers to resale of software (licenses). MS have always allowed you to sell your OEM Windows PC+OS to someone else - I don't see that the ruling you cited is relevant to locking MS OS's to systems?
Microsoft have said (and still say as far as I'm aware) that OEM Windows keys are tied to the original hardware (i.e. motherboard) that they're installed on and can't be transferred to another machine, which is completely contradictory to this ruling that the software (not software+PC) and right to use it belongs to the purchaser and can be sold on by the current owner to someone else (and then by the new owner to someone else and so on).
No, my system has no original components. I entered the key to activate it, had to phone an automated number (probably to verify that I am in the EU) and it confirmed it as genuine.
Posted 31 July 2013 - 11:37 PM
AFAICT the ruling related to Oracle originally forbidding the second hand sales of its s/w and licences (e.g. on eBay).
MS allow the second hand sales of their OS licences.
Was this a Win8 OEM COA that you activated - I guess not as Win8 OEM systems don't have COAs? I am very curious because this has never been the case with Win7 before...
If MS allow someone to activate a system just by phone, then what is to stop someone obtaining a Win7 OEM Product key from another system COA label (say from a retail store), and then activating it on their own system at home?
Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:30 AM
How can you argue that MS allow the s/h sale of their OS licences when they specify that OEM licences are tied to the original hardware and can't even be transferred to another machine by the original purchaser, let alone sold to another person and used on a different machine. It seems that everything that MS publishes on the web about licencing is intended for the US market and they kinda just ignore the EU rulings and hope that people don't become aware of them.
No, it was a Win7 OEM COA, not Win8.
I would assume that MS deactivate the licence on the original machine if the COA key is used on another machine and if it's then sold and used on another machine, then it becomes invalid on the previous machine. Do stores display machines with licence keys for anyone to copy down? Seems a bit daft if they do! Anyway, whatever system MS use to try and prevent licences being used by people who haven't bought them is for them to decide, as long as it doesn't infringe on the right for people to buy and sell their licences freely, as they're legally entitled to do.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:15 AM
What OEM did the COA that you used belong to? OEM COAs have the name of the original mfr printed on them. e.g.
Do stores display machines with licence keys for anyone to copy down? Seems a bit daft if they do!
Sure - the COA is stuck on the outside of the system. In fact the OEM COA Product Key printed on the COA label is never used for activation as the OEM product Key used for activation is the same key for all the OEMs Win7 systems (of the same SKU - e.g. Win 7 Pro). Previously, if you tried to activate an OEM product Key, MS just referred you to the OEM. The company I used to work for was a major system builder in the UK and I was responsible for OS installation/deployment/licensing issues, etc.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 10:38 AM
As a matter of fact it is part of the agreement between MS and the OEM (starting from a date like 2000 or 2001) the OEM is bound to attach the COA sticker to the case of the PC.
Is one of those things that make very little sense , but at the time I remember friends that had (very little) businesses connected to selling "assembled PC's" being a lot worried about this clause of the agreement and I distinctly remember about the following issue (we are talking of a one man show, a PC repair guy - a kid at the time - that as a side business did assemble some PC's for his customers, like after hours and in his basement, and sold them as a "service" to his customers):
After a few tests and by making a (clever ) misuse of Maxwell's little Demon (I happened to have just built a quite nice Ranque-Hilsch tube for completely unrelated reasons), the problem was easily solved.
Wonko
Posted 01 August 2013 - 11:34 AM
What OEM did the COA that you used belong to? OEM COAs have the name of the original mfr printed on them. e.g.
Do stores display machines with licence keys for anyone to copy down? Seems a bit daft if they do!
Sure - the COA is stuck on the outside of the system. In fact the OEM COA Product Key printed on the COA label is never used for activation as the OEM product Key used for activation is the same key for all the OEMs Win7 systems (of the same SKU - e.g. Win 7 Pro). Previously, if you tried to activate an OEM product Key, MS just referred you to the OEM. The company I used to work for was a major system builder in the UK and I was responsible for OS installation/deployment/licensing issues, etc.
Mine just says "OEM Software" rather than a specific manufacturer.
I definitely used the COA product key on the label to activate. Perhaps you're thinking of the OEM SLP key, which uses the SLIC table embedded in the BIOS on the manufacturer's motherboards and which I believe is common to all their machines (of the same SKU).
Posted 01 August 2013 - 11:47 AM
Sounds like a system builder COA label.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:03 PM
Yeah, maybe. Wasn't sold as such but I don't care as long as it works!
Mind you, MGADIAG shows "Windows License Type: COA SLP" and on another forum they're insisting it's illegal for me to use this licence, despite the fact that Microsoft have accepted it and activated it as genuine and having explained that I'm in the EU and pointing them to the same judgement I posted here
Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:42 PM
Just for the record, and aiming at keeping related things as together as possible, here are two older links I think remain relevant (at least up to 7 sp1, I guess):
Is it OK to use OEM Windows on your own PC? Don't ask Microsoft!
A welcome change in Microsoft licensing terms
Hope you find them useful.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:48 PM
@dencorso
That is "connected" , but completely out of topic .
The point raised in the links you posted is about whether the "final customer" that builds his own PC can be (or he/she cannot be) considered to be a "very small scale" OEM, and thus eligible to buy a OEM license and disc.
IF this is allowed (and as seen in those links it has been at least for several years), it still applies only to the actually still "wrapped" pack.
The topic here is on another aspect.
Undoubtedly Microsoft has always intended an OEM license, once linked for the first time to a specific specimen of hardware, to become indissolubly linked to it.
The known case that doveman cited is as well, unrelated to the issue at hand.
The case is about a German company that re-sold Oracle software that had a clause that prohibited re-selling the software.
Microsoft never prohibited to resell the software (or the hardware) but imposed that the two became - at the time of the opening of the shrinkwrap, further symbolized by the application of the COA sticker, a non-separable WHOLE, and made the license VOID if the software is used on other hardware if not the original one.
And here starts all the nitpicking about what is "non-peripheral" or "main parts" of the "original" PC and what can be "transplanted" carrying with it the actual valid software license.
It is not unlike how marriage was intended before divorce was invented (and accepted by most societies), once you were married, it was "till death do us part".
doveman maybe you can consider the case of a software that comes with a "dongle".
The software only works in conjunction with the dongle, you have to move the dongle on another PC (besides copying the actual program) to have it working.
Dongle authentication is there (mainly) for two reasons:
now it is clear that the software is "married" to the dongle and it is not licensed (besides not running) without the dongle.
If you want to re-sell the program you need to sell at the same time the program (license and software) and the dongle.
If you are a licensed user of the software and you happen to lose the dongle (or it gets fried) most (honest) software makers will provide you with a duplicate for free or for a nominal fee (some will require that you send them the "old" dongle or that you send them a Police report about the theft or accidental loss of it).
A few (dishonest) software houses will hear NO excuses of any kind and will at the most provide you with a new copy of the software with a - little or relevant - discount (and a few will actually ask you to pay again for the "full" price).
The difference with Microsoft software is only that the "dongle" is the actual PC and there are not technical means (if not authentication/activation, automated or by phone, which even technically is very far from "fool-proof") to prevent the execution of the program.
And if you know what to tell to the good MS guys phone support, you can usually talk them into validating also things that should NOT be validated, according to the license.
Wonko
Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:29 PM
The known case that doveman cited is as well, unrelated to the issue at hand.
The case is about a German company that re-sold Oracle software that had a clause that prohibited re-selling the software.
Microsoft never prohibited to resell the software (or the hardware) but imposed that the two became - at the time of the opening of the shrinkwrap, further symbolized by the application of the COA sticker, a non-separable WHOLE, and made the license VOID if the software is used on other hardware if not the original one.
And here starts all the nitpicking about what is "non-peripheral" or "main parts" of the "original" PC and what can be "transplanted" carrying with it the actual valid software license.
It is not unlike how marriage was intended before divorce was invented (and accepted by most societies), once you were married, it was "till death do us part".
doveman maybe you can consider the case of a software that comes with a "dongle".
The software only works in conjunction with the dongle, you have to move the dongle on another PC (besides copying the actual program) to have it working.
Dongle authentication is there (mainly) for two reasons:
- prevent (indirectly) the re-distribution of unathorized copies
- prevent (directly) the concurrent execution of more than one instances of the program
now it is clear that the software is "married" to the dongle and it is not licensed (besides not running) without the dongle.
If you want to re-sell the program you need to sell at the same time the program (license and software) and the dongle.
If you are a licensed user of the software and you happen to lose the dongle (or it gets fried) most (honest) software makers will provide you with a duplicate for free or for a nominal fee (some will require that you send them the "old" dongle or that you send them a Police report about the theft or accidental loss of it).
A few (dishonest) software houses will hear NO excuses of any kind and will at the most provide you with a new copy of the software with a - little or relevant - discount (and a few will actually ask you to pay again for the "full" price).
The difference with Microsoft software is only that the "dongle" is the actual PC and there are not technical means (if not authentication/activation, automated or by phone, which even technically is very far from "fool-proof") to prevent the execution of the program.
And if you know what to tell to the good MS guys phone support, you can usually talk them into validating also things that should NOT be validated, according to the license.
Wonko
I disagree and maintain that the case I linked to is very much related to the issue at hand. The ruling was quite clear that because of EU laws and directives, which apply to the whole EU, once a software developer has sold a copy of their software to someone, they lose any rights to control whether the owner subsequently sells on that software. Any EULA terms that try to make the licence VOID if the software is sold in a way that Microsoft disapproves of are themselves nullified and overridden by EU law.
Other EU law, perhaps not explicitly referred to in this particular case, only allows for "tying" products when they are small and make sense for the customer (such as shoelaces with shoes) but does not permit "tying" large products together, in this case a PC and some software, both of which can be considered separate entities which can be used without the other (i.e. with different software or a different PC). Obviously shoes and shoelaces could fit this criteria but the issues the EU considers relevant are the size/cost of the tied products and whether it would disadvantage the customer more to prohibit the "tying", so for example they were unable to buy shoes with shoelaces but had to choose and buy them separately, or risk getting home and opening their shoebox to find they had no laces and so they couldn't wear them.
Regarding a dongle, I am sure that this would be considered a reasonable thing to be "tied" to the software and is merely a replacement, in some ways more convenient for the customer, for a licence/activation key that needs to be entered. As long as the company doesn't attempt to place any restrictions on the re-sale of the software, along with the dongle without which it can't be used, I can't see that the EU law would be breached. I can imagine that the EU might get rather annoyed with any company who requires the use of a dongle to use their software but then refuses to replace the dongle if damaged for a reasonable fee, as if they sell a licence to use their software for an unlimited period of time, then they would be expected to provide reasonable assistance to the owner (whether the original purchaser or someone else) to enable them to so use the software they'd bought.
If you tried to tell the EU that a PC is the same as a dongle, I think the response would be something like or depending on what mood they're in that day (they do get rather angry sometimes!)
On your last point, when I activated I was connected to an automated phone system, so there was no need or opportunity to try and trick anyone into activating my licence. This suggests to me the Microsoft aren't concerned about what particular hardware this licence is used with or if I'm the original purchaser. Whether this is because they're respecting the judgement I referred to and know that they can't legally restrict the use of the software in these ways anymore, or if it's some other reason I don't know.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:16 PM
Very good.I disagree and maintain that the case I linked to is very much related to the issue at hand.
So, at the most, it could apply to the copies of MS software downloaded (Digitalriver and similar).On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.
2. Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.
Yes, I was a step forward, saying that in a number of cases where the "automated" methods (including the "automated phone service") failed in activating the copy, by talking to a real human being you are usually given the activation, without any particular "trick", simply explaining how you have to replace your motherboard because it was fried (it is up to your conscience whether this is true or not).On your last point, when I activated I was connected to an automated phone system, so there was no need or opportunity to try and trick anyone into activating my licence. This suggests to me the Microsoft aren't concerned about what particular hardware this licence is used with or if I'm the original purchaser. Whether this is because they're respecting the judgement I referred to and know that they can't legally restrict the use of the software in these ways anymore, or if it's some other reason I don't know.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:48 PM
Very good.
It's not the first time you are wrong and it won't be the last one . Let's agree to disagree .
Indeed I have been wrong on many occasions. It's your turn this time though I think
BTW; even under Common Law, the sentence says:
So, at the most, it could apply to the copies of MS software downloaded (Digitalriver and similar).
If you read the entire judgement (item 32 particularly), you'll see that they specifically mention that the directives already cover hard copies of software and they were just considering whether they also extend to covering downloaded copies, so as a result of this judgement, both are now subject to the Exhaustion of the distribution right/first sale rule, whereas before only hard copies were (or at least the legal position on downloaded copies was unclear and the legal position on hard copies had perhaps not been specifically referred to in a court case).
That's the strange way the law works it seems. Parliament (or whatever) makes the laws but until a case is brought for the Court to consider, no-one really knows what effect the law will have or how it will be interpreted and enforced.
Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:58 PM
Indeed I have been wrong on many occasions. It's your turn this time though I think
Sure, very possible, but seemingly not on this particular item.
If you read the entire judgement (item 32 particularly), you'll see that they specifically mention that the directives already cover hard copies of software and they were just considering whether they also extend to covering downloaded copies, so as a result of this judgement, both are now subject to the Exhaustion of the distribution right/first sale rule, whereas before only hard copies were (or at least the legal position on downloaded copies was unclear and the legal position on hard copies had perhaps not been specifically referred to in a court case).
Sure , and that means that that particular sentence does NOT apply to non-downloaded software (which may or may not be covered by other Laws or sentences, BUT NOT by that particular one you cited).
Q.E.D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
That's the strange way the law works it seems. Parliament (or whatever) makes the laws but until a case is brought for the Court to consider, no-one really knows what effect the law will have or how it will be interpreted and enforced.
Yep, that's one of the reasons why life stinks!
Wonko
Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:36 PM
Sure, very possible, but seemingly not on this particular item.
Sure , and that means that that particular sentence does NOT apply to non-downloaded software (which may or may not be covered by other Laws or sentences, BUT NOT by that particular one you cited).
Q.E.D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
Yep, that's one of the reasons why life stinks!
Posted 01 August 2013 - 09:57 PM
Posted 01 August 2013 - 10:23 PM
A additional case arises at Windows 8:
a royalty OEM key is stored at firmware, the key is encrypted.
Technically there are tools to read the key
http://answers.micro...ed-d9625c7e68ff
http://www.msfn.org/...-8-product-key/
However: Can I read the key legally?
If I'm not allowed to read the key, I don't knew the key and can't use the key at another machine.
Compare decrypt a CSS encrypted DVD. http://en.wikipedia....Scramble_System
Posted 02 August 2013 - 07:59 AM
So although this case was considering more specifically the situation with downloaded software, the very fact that it may have been the first case where the court discussed non-download software and made it clear what the situation with that is, it may also have had the effect of giving clarity and strength to the law as it pertains to non-download software. Two for one if you will
Please, do take some time re-reading about the differences between Common Law and Civil Law.
A sentence in Civil Law ONLY applies to the specific case and ONLY to it, and while it does constitute an "authoritative legal opinion" that can be cited to support one's thesis in another lawsuit, it has NO direct effect on anything if not the specific case.
If you've bought Windows 8 in the EU, then according the the legislation you have the right to do what you want with it (within reason), such as transfer it to a different PC, sell it to whoever you want.
NO, not really.
According to YOUR ( BTW very respectable ) interpretation of Law. (which is NOT the SAME thing )
Wonko
Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:51 PM
Please, do take some time re-reading about the differences between Common Law and Civil Law.
A sentence in Civil Law ONLY applies to the specific case and ONLY to it, and while it does constitute an "authoritative legal opinion" that can be cited to support one's thesis in another lawsuit, it has NO direct effect on anything if not the specific case.
NO, not really.
According to YOUR ( BTW very respectable ) interpretation of Law. (which is NOT the SAME thing )
Wonko
Well OK, we won't know for sure if I've interpreted it correctly or not until another case specifically about Microsoft comes before the Court for it to rule on.
All I'm trying to say is that it appears that EU law (which the case in question relied on and reiterated as well as clarifying in regard to downloaded software) states that the seller's right of distribution (i.e. to control how the item is sold) is exhausted on first sale and the purchaser then has the right to use or sell the item as he sees fit (within the terms of the licence that don't contradict EU law, so not installing it on multiple PCs, etc), so it's reasonable to assume that any attempts to interfere with this right would be frowned on and anyone bringing a case against Microsoft (or whoever) for doing so would be likely to win (I'm talking about a case in the EU Court, as with local courts they tend to be less reliable/sensible).
It's kind of surprising that Microsoft still seem to be interfering with this right with the way they're handling Windows 8 keys (I have no knowledge of this other than what cdob said) as they've already been clobbered with multiple heavy fines by the EU and you'd think they'd want to try and avoid any more but then they've never been that sensible
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users