Microsoft Shuts Auction Doors On Old Windows 403
mrv writes "Microsoft is keeping a more-vigilant eye on online auctions of old copies of Windows software, with people trying to offload it due to the upcoming release of XP. Also within the story is info and tips for donating a computer (and software licenses) to charity. (Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!)" A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software). Time to go re-read what sellers of used software have had to say last year, and the MS method of shutting own eBay auctions.
a Realistic Threshold (Score:3, Insightful)
So with the obvious eBay incidents aside, I get the feeling you can quietly pirate your software to your heart's content, as long as you stay under the high-water mark.
my 2 cents.
"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:5, Insightful)
- A.P.
Email the seller a question when you see (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on MS, take one for the team... (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, if a person wants to DONATE a computer/software to a charity, or a school, I think MS ought to shut their collective legal yaps and let the charity/school get what productivity they can out of the thing, gratis. Nailing the Red Cross or a rural elementary school $100US for a 6 year old version of Win95 borders on criminal...I mean, how many BILLIONS does Gates and company really need?
So long as schools and charities are not using their software to pirate or commit crimes, MS ought to make themselves into a shining white knight and give their OS away to them. They do that, and the govt' will suddenly seem like the bully, rather than MS.
Re:How barbaric. (Score:2, Insightful)
If only charities... (Score:2, Insightful)
If only charities could find the time and know-how to use open source, they could save a lot of money, and direct the saved funds into their work.
Maybe tech-savvy people could donate know-how, instead of money in this case.
Although, AFAIK Microsoft does offer some sort od discount for charities.
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, even if you're upgrading from an old PC to a new PC and you want to use your copy of Windows 98 on this new PC, you're still required to pay for a copy of Windows XP that you can't get rid of? And if someone wants to get some new life out of an old PC, he's not allowed to have a copy of Windows 95 unless Microsoft lets him buy it from them (yeah right), even if you have an extra legal copy you're not using?
And what's more, Microsoft appears to be strong-arming the issue to get even more leeway. The article [yahoo.com] says that Ron Faul was selling two copies of Windows 95 and that Microsoft had eBay shut down the auctions; it doesn't say that these were preinstalled copies. I especially like this quote: "The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft."
Years and years and years of court cases against Microsoft, from their killing DR-DOS back in the early 1980's by spreading Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt all the way up to their killing Netscape in the late 1990's by 'cutting off their air supply,' and they're still powerful enough to pull trash like this -- Bill Gates is probably laughing his head off at the all-bark-no-bite of the American legal system.
Upgrading... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really found myself smiling at this. Isn't the idea that if you're upgrading that you have to still have the original licence?
For example.... with Dreamnweaver 3, when the user of that damn softawre in my company was given a new computer, part of the installation procedure was to type in the licence key for Dreamweaver 2. Okay, so this is really just to avoid people buying an upgrade when they aren't upgrading, but I think it's valid enough.
Tom.
Ok, question for the masses (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).
In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.
Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.
Re:By definition... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Sale (Score:3, Insightful)
If you sold your copy of Windows NT and bought a new full retail copy of Windows XP, I don't think MS would mind. If you sold your NT and only bought a cheaper "upgrade" to XP, then there is a problem, since you no longer have a right to run the upgrade. That's the core of the matter.
Sort of. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they refused to take the return, does the EULA that I did not agree to hold valid?
Microsoft don't want you running old versions (Score:2, Insightful)
Apart from all the valid points contributed so far about ownership etc. I'd also point out that...
MS don't want you running old software, they want you to buy new software, and then pay to upgrade, and pay to upgrade it continuously.
New MS software in one area tends to force you to use new software elsewhere (XP ? Better upgrade to Office XP as 2000 is being phased out and might have problems. And IE6, as 5 may not run properly. Oh, and that include WMP, maybe you'd better buy something else too) - its called locking in the users and raiding their wallets.... and thats the part of their business model that I find unethical.... (wanna run IE, its free, but the new version with the bug fixes needs a new version of windows)
T
Re:And this doesn't make them a monopoly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I bought my new Toshiba laptop last month, the seal on the box had large type stating the enclosed software operating system is sold with the unit, cannot be seperated, and may not be subject to a refund, except for the whole unit.
Since I bought a laptop, I was legally required to buy Windows and it would be illegal for me to sell it, unless I sold my laptop with it. Great free country we live in, eh?
Re:Ok, question for the masses (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what's meant by "that PC"? Do I need a new license for each part I replace? If not, then if I've replaced everything (either over time or wholesale), then I should be able to use that license on the improved "old" machine.
Gets kinda sticky, doesn't it?
Re:It's a boring day, with slow news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also I really don't see were I would want to stop people from selling my game if they wanted. Obviously they could keep a copy and sell the original which would bother me, but I wouldn't want to punish honest users, especially in MS's case when the honest user has actually paid money for an upgrade so you know he isn't using the software anymore.
Of course I also wouldn't get up in arms if they wanted to install my game on more than one computer, as long as they owned the computers, but most companies today seem to mind that as well. It seems ashame that parents should have to buy two copies of a game if two of their children with two seperate computers both want the game.
Re:MS - Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I have about half a dozen of these loaned out to various people who needed a new hard drive, or had to reinstall for whatever reason. The fact that they didn't get media, or they got a Win98 upgrade disk but no 95, means they would have to go out and buy a NEW MS OS for £100+ to run on an old P100 32Mb RAM. They wouldn't.
MS should either sell win95 CDs in supermarkets for £20, or let you sell your copy for what you like. A current OS is perhaps a different matter - they have to make a living you know!
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS - Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2, Insightful)
This is true in theory, that the sellers and the buyers generally are honest people that aren't looking to pirate, but I think we should follow the money here. MS's OEM EULA states that the software in which this system is installed with cannot be separated, blah blah blah. This is why MS makes the distinction between OEM and Retail products in the first place. They have been doing this for years. Why buy one copy of Windows for $199 when you can get a OEM for $99? Because of their wonderful packaging, and the ability to resell. Besides, EULA's aside, MS isn't getting anything out of this deal, they are seeing someone who SHOULD be UPGEADING their system to run XP instead taking the easy way out and buying a OS that will work on their current machine.
I agree with you completely, they should be DAMN HAPPY that they are making a concerted effort to BUY a OS vs. having next-door neighbor with a spiffy new machine burn his old OS.
Re:How barbaric. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've heard this said over and over again, but it's simply not true. You are buying a CD with an installer on it. As long as you obtained that CD legally you have the right to install it on your computer and use it, unless you give up that right some other way. You do not need a license to install and run software, just like you don't need a license to read a book. You only need a license to copy, distribute, or create a derivitive work. While installation involves copying, it is exempted by copyright law as long as you follow certain rules (basically, you have to have purchased the copy legally and cannot install it on more than one computer at a time).
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is true. However, as a quote from the article:
so, even if you have a legit. retail version of an older Windows product, your auction can be pulled until you jump through the hoops to establish that you have a non-OEM version...
Experience selling bundled copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, I received a copy of Windows NT 4.0 workstation with my copy of Visual C++ I purchased in college. I attempted to sell just the NT 4.0 workstation CD (with key, and thus its license). I never installed the CD on any of my machines, so I thought it would be ok.
MS contacted eBay and my auction was immediately shut down for "illegal goods". When I asked eBay customer support the reason, they said that Microsoft claimed I was selling the CD without a proper license. I said to them I was selling the CD with its associated license, and I had never installed the software. They said to contact Microsoft, which I did and it was never resolved.
To this date I harbor no ill will towards MS or eBay (I've completed dozens of other auctions without issue, and for what eBay does [getting a ton of people to look at your auction], it does well). Still, I can't imagine what it'll be like in the future.
Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:3, Insightful)
I have this funny feeling at least one of Microsoft's legal staff is reading this that happens in the mood to set an example about how strict copyrights can get.
I'd imagine with a world with too many lawyers, some get bored and like to investigate the damnedest things. Do you feel lucky today?
Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:3, Insightful)
But the EULA isn't valid for so many reasons I won't begin to list them all. *If* they showed you the license before you bought the software it might be different.
Don't Be Fooled into Taking a Loss on Useless SW (Score:2, Insightful)
Software publishers have been pushing fiction as fact in the hopes that it will become fact. Indeed, many people now believe that software publishers can add and enforce additional restrictions above and beyond copyright restrictions after the sale has taken place. In reality, after buying a copy of any copyrighted work, you're free to dispose of it as you see fit. Tear the pages out of a book you no longer read and use them as kindling or emergency toilet paper. Use your old Windows 95 and Office CDROM's as coasters or frisbees. Shim up that wobbly table with those useless copies of Microsoft Bob. Sell your old, useless, buggy software to suckers on eBay or at the local geek flea market. But don't be a sucker yourself. Don't be fooled into taking a total loss on software you no longer use by the proprietary software industry's propaganda.
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Insightful)
The telling word is Charmaine Gravning's use of "policy." That's all this is: Microsoft's policy, which eBay happens to be cooperating with. It's a matter of MS policy, not copyright law, and not contract (EULA) law. It's just Microsoft's will and desires, which they are successfully imposing upon. As with many things, the solution is simply this: Just Say No.
Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoa, whoa. You were not "legally required" to do anything. It's just that the party you bought that laptop from, offered no other options. You could have purchased some other laptop from some other, more reasonable, party. (Assuming there are any.) There is obviously nothing in the law that says people who buy laptops must buy MS Windows.
This has not been established. Microsoft doesn't want you to sell it, and eBay complies with their wishes in that regard, if you try to use eBay to sell it. That is all. Copyright law is what determines if something is "illegal" or not, and it doesn't appear to say anything about this issue.
Re:Shrinkwrap licenses? Defraud by the Mfr? (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it utterly fascinating that a source listing for that page (WinXP) is littered with Javascript, something I was under the impression Microsoft was dumping support for.
Re:Sort of. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. (Score:1, Insightful)
And why not?
Because the EULA says so? Interesting concept: You're bound by a contract you didn't agree to.
Here's one that should make your head explode: By reading this post, you agree to agree with everything I say. By NOT reading this post, you agree to agree with everything I say.
So now everybody in the world (including you) has to agree with what I say, right?
Bottom line: I bought something (CD and license), Right of first sale says I can re-sell it to whoever I damnwell please. (as long as I don't keep a copy.)
It's not win95 sales they're worried about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's biggest competition comes from its own obsolete software. They're not worried that they're losing the profits from a win9x sale, they're worried that you're choosing to use a copy of YAOS (for values of YAOS != M$OS.current_version), thus depriving them of a sale of WinXP. If they can reduce the supply of all obsolete versions of their software, then it's more likely that joe user will pay to license the current version.
Oh, and I'm sure that Intel would agree with them that since you can't legally get a copy of win95 anymore that it's time to upgrade your hardware as well...
Re:It's because there is no copyright in germany. (Score:4, Insightful)
NO. Copyright is only a right to control the first distribution channel, as established by the Supreme Court in a case dealing precisely with second-sale of books. The law is (q.v. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/ chapters/2/sections/section_202.html [findlaw.com]:
or, for a readable-English account of what this means, see http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/copyown/copyown_8.htmunderage (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL. thank god