Jump to content











Photo

OEM version vs. Retail version of Windows


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#26 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:09 AM

@Medevil
I guess that it will also prevent users to run a high tech two-players interactive game :dubbio: such as ;):
Spoiler


:cheers:
Wonko

#27 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:44 PM

We two must be the same person from mirror universes.
We two think too much alike, though we have mostly opposite opinions. ;)

:cheers:

#28 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

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. ;)


Which means that thinking may lead to opposite opinions, of which yours are wrong and mine are right (generally speaking) :whistling: ;).

Seriously :), that particular "for use by one person at a time" is seemingly another atttempt to dumbify the Windows experience, JFYI:
http://www.msfn.org/...47#entry1008647
http://www.msfn.org/...67#entry1012567

I guess that this time, we will also get to the same conclusions :smiling9:

This time really OT :ph34r:
http://www.msfn.org/...-special-toast/
I cannot make any sense out of the "Inappropriate use of toast notifications" besides of the whole "toast" concept, I am probably getting too old for the new logic (at least the one coming from the good MS guys).


:cheers:
Wonko

#29 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:35 PM

It's not just M$. There is a whole industry catering to the dumb!
But it's kinda ok, since those only employ idiots themselfs.

Opening the same 20 pages in different versions of a browser, look all the same. The newer version will not give one any content, the old one didn't show. Still each newer version will require more disk space and use more RAM for the same job.

If i'd download and display those 2ß pages as BMP, they would require less diskspace and RAM! :crazy:

btw: The funny point that hit me yesterday was, that with every new Windows version, i feel the need to replace more and more of it's default components with 3rd party tools.

I think to remember, that development of a product was meant to go the other way. ;)

:cheers:

#30 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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



#31 steve6375

steve6375

    Platinum Member

  • Developer
  • 6629 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:computers, programming (masm,vb6,C,vbs), photography,TV,films,guitars
  •  
    United Kingdom

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

 

http://www.techdirt....-you-cant.shtml

 

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?



#32 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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.



#33 steve6375

steve6375

    Platinum Member

  • Developer
  • 6629 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:computers, programming (masm,vb6,C,vbs), photography,TV,films,guitars
  •  
    United Kingdom

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?



#34 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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.



#35 steve6375

steve6375

    Platinum Member

  • Developer
  • 6629 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:computers, programming (masm,vb6,C,vbs), photography,TV,films,guitars
  •  
    United Kingdom

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.

8791060903730387.jpg 

 

  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.



#36 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

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 :frusty:, 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):

  • a client ordered him 10 new PC's (you have to understand how for that guy it was like 10,000 PC's order for a "real" OEM)
  • he bought a 10 pack OEM of Windows XP
  • he bought 10 cases (minitower) and motherboards, etc.
  • he assembled the PC's and put the COA stickers on them
  • the customer wanted instead the PC's as "desktop case" (my friend did make a mistake but could simply not bear the expenses of 10 more cases and 10 more licenses as he had (literally) no money left)
  • the supplier of the cases would accept the exchange of the cases, but of course the stickers were the issue

After a few tests and by making a (clever :unsure:) misuse of Maxwell's little Demon (I happened to have just built a quite nice Ranque-Hilsch tube :smiling9: for completely unrelated reasons), the problem was easily solved.  ;)

 

:cheers:

Wonko



#37 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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.

8791060903730387.jpg 

 

  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).



#38 steve6375

steve6375

    Platinum Member

  • Developer
  • 6629 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:computers, programming (masm,vb6,C,vbs), photography,TV,films,guitars
  •  
    United Kingdom

Posted 01 August 2013 - 11:47 AM

Sounds like a system builder COA label.



#39 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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 :starwars:



#40 dencorso

dencorso

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 118 posts
  •  
    Brazil

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.



#41 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:48 PM

@dencorso

That is "connected" :), but completely out of topic :w00t:.

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:

  1. prevent (indirectly) the re-distribution of unathorized copies
  2. 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.

 

 

:cheers:

Wonko 



#42 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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:

  1. prevent (indirectly) the re-distribution of unathorized copies
  2. 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.

 

 

:cheers:

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 :buehehe:  or :censored: 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. 



#43 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:16 PM

I disagree and maintain that the case I linked to is very much related to the issue at hand.

Very good. :)
It's not the first time you are wrong :w00t: ;) and it won't be the last one :whistling:. Let's agree to disagree :).
 
Though maybe, being from the UK you are traditionally used to Common Law:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Common_law
and much less to Civil Law:
http://en.wikipedia...._(legal_system)
 
BTW; even under Common Law, the sentence says:
 

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.

So, at the most, it could apply to the copies of MS software downloaded (Digitalriver and similar).
 
MInd you, I don't think - and I am not saying - that MS EULA (and particularly that "no separation from hardware" clause) is actually valid - let alone enforceable - only that that particular EU sentence has nothing to do with it.

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.

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).
 
:cheers:
Wonko

#44 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:48 PM

Very good. :)
It's not the first time you are wrong :w00t: ;) and it won't be the last one :whistling:. Let's agree to disagree :).


Indeed I have been wrong on many occasions. It's your turn this time though I think  :ph34r: 
 

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.



#45 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:58 PM

Indeed I have been wrong on many occasions. It's your turn this time though I think  :ph34r:

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. :smiling9:
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! :(

 

:cheers:

Wonko



#46 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:36 PM

Sure, very possible, but seemingly not on this particular item.


I wouldn't be too sure ;)

 

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. :smiling9:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.


Because of the peculiar way the law works, although the directives (laws) may have already intended that non-download software was the property of the purchaser, to sell or dispose of as he sees fit, if no previous case had stated this and written it down as part of it's deliberations/judgement, the actual effect of that law may have been unclear and repeatedly violated. 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 ;)
  

Yep, that's one of the reasons why life stinks! :(


Couldn't agree more. I love the law for what it should and can do but hate it for it's ambiguity and sharp corners!

#47 cdob

cdob

    Gold Member

  • Expert
  • 1342 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 09:57 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

#48 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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


Interesting. 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.

Obviously you need the key to do so, so if anyone is preventing you from accessing and using this key it would seem to be unlawful interference with your right to use and enjoy your purchase and as such, it may be lawful to circumvent this encryption to retrieve your key (although it gets complicated as there may be other laws that make it an offence to circumvent DRM, so you'd have to check whether those laws make allowance for circumventing DRM that is preventing the owner exercising their rights in relation to the product they've purchased!)

At the end of the day, whoever's not providing you with the key you need to use your purchase in the ways you're legally entitled to is on dodgy ground but it's likely to take another court case to stop this practice.

#49 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13745 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

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 :worship:) interpretation of Law. (which is NOT the SAME thing :whistling:)

 

:cheers:

Wonko



#50 doveman

doveman

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Surrey
  •  
    United Kingdom

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 :worship:) interpretation of Law. (which is NOT the SAME thing :whistling:)

 

:cheers:

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.  :hammer:

 

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  :crazy:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users