Upgrading mobo, will I need to re-buy Vista 64?

[Sin_Chase]

If Microsoft was not such a cryptic bag of balls then things might be more clear.

If one replaces a motherboard and needs to re-activate, they will call the phone line. The automated system will ask very basic questions to which users will give truthful answers.

How many systems is this OS installed on? 1.
Is it installed on the original PC it came with? Yes.

The systems does not specify motherboard, or any one particular piece of hardware. At the end of the day I would laugh in the face of MS trying to bring about litigation against a user for re-activating their OEM key after putting in a new motherboard.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If Microsoft was not such a cryptic bag of balls then things might be more clear.

Microsoft don't expect the OEM licence to be used by home consumers. Any repair should be done through an OEM warranty replacement scheme, who know the rules. Consumers should only be buying upgrade or FPP retail products.

At the end of the day I would laugh in the face of MS trying to bring about litigation against a user for re-activating their OEM key after putting in a new motherboard.

But that's not the point. We don't choose our actions totally dependant on the consequences.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Microsoft don't expect the OEM licence to be used by home consumers. Any repair should be done through an OEM warranty replacement scheme, who know the rules. Consumers should only be buying upgrade or FPP retail products.

Here is where I dis-agree.

If this were the case, OEMs would not be stickered to the system but would be maintained on databases linked to system serials by the manufacturer.

The end user is entitled to their OEM licence and has every right to deal with it in any way they see fit. Manufacturer warranty aside from a user messing with their system, they still own their licence.

 

[XCougar]

Here is where I dis-agree.

If this were the case, OEMs would not be stickered to the system but would be maintained on databases linked to system serials by the manufacturer.

The end user is entitled to their OEM licence and has every right to deal with it in any way they see fit. Manufacturer warranty aside from a user messing with their system, they still own their licence.

Yea and if they did use stickers then surely they would be on the motherboard instead?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Here is where I dis-agree.

If this were the case, OEMs would not be stickered to the system but would be maintained on databases linked to system serials by the manufacturer.

The end user is entitled to their OEM licence and has every right to deal with it in any way they see fit. Manufacturer warranty aside from a user messing with their system, they still own their licence.

Let me make this a bit clearer. The vast amount of consumers that buy an OEM licence do it through an large OEM. Any repairs should do done through the manufacturer and allowances make the licence still valid. If you have not bought the OEM licence through an OEM then you should not been allowed to buy the product. Either way, all repairs should be through the sytem builder.

Having a database doesn't fulfil one of the primary functions of the COA, to show a consumer they are using a genuine licence. The consumer has a right to use the software under the terms of the EULA, which prevents transference of the licence to another machine and that is defined as the motherboard by MS. Like it or not, those are the facts.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Either way, all repairs should be through the sytem builder.

All I have to say on that matter.

 

[Burnsy2023]

All I have to say on that matter.

Well, that's a well thought out argument. It could take me a while to think of a intelligent way to counter that streak of genius.

And have your back.

 

[CaptainCrash]

Having a database doesn't fulfil one of the primary functions of the COA, to show a consumer they are using a genuine licence. The consumer has a right to use the software under the terms of the EULA, which prevents transference of the licence to another machine and that is defined as the motherboard by MS. Like it or not, those are the facts.

I'm not sure it's quite that cut and dried - unless and until a court upholds the strict letter of MS's EULA in a test case under those specific circumstances, it's all rather open to interpretation.

MS do permit the transfer of the licence to another motherboard in certain conditions, and if an activation is successful, I think there's a very strong case for the end user to reasonably assume that they were acting within the terms of the contract, and if MS were to argue the toss, a court would rule against them accordingly.

I'd really like to see some relevant case law, but thus far it seems conspicuous by its absence.

 

[Burnsy2023]

MS do permit the transfer of the licence to another motherboard in certain conditions, and if an activation is successful, I think there's a very strong case for the end user to reasonably assume that they were acting within the terms of the contract, and if MS were to argue the toss, a court would rule against them accordingly.

Activation is a means to prevent piracy not to prove adherance to the licence. Either way, unless this goes to court, which it never will do, especially for a consumer, it's always prudent to adhere to the advice from MS.

 

[CaptainCrash]

Activation is a means to prevent piracy not to prove adherance to the licence.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that a succesful activation would "reasonably" infer that a user was acting in accordance with the licence - otherwise, why would MS permit the activation, when it's presumably within their capability to deny it?

If MS thought otherwise, I'm not sure why they *wouldn't* take it to court in a test case, to put the whole thing to bed once and for all, unless they thought there was a real chance their EULA would be ruled as unfair and unenforceable...

 

[Sin_Chase]

Well, that's a well thought out argument. It could take me a while to think of a intelligent way to counter that streak of genius.

And have your back.

My argument would be so cut and dry, as clear as day it was not worth presenting. But as you seem to be ignorant to it, I'll outline it for you.

The end user owns their OEM license, on their pre-built box. And you sit there, and dictate that all repairs would be handled by the manufacturer?

Do you have any idea how many companies sell OEM licenses on pre-built systems? How do you know all of them offer warranty and repair services? You expect people to return their equipment or have it repaired by the original manufacturer until said equipment is retired from use?

Are you high? Most companies will cease support on an end of line product, and in your eyes, a customer, who now has a broken PC is expected by Microsoft to never be exposed to the issues of OEM licensing and therefore not 'accidentally' re-activate a product unknowing of the so called EULA with an OEM then be open to, on paper, litigation? All because they would never seek a 3rd party repair?

Wow, just wow.

It's a public telephone service, actively supported from within the OS with clear step by step instructions. It's bloody well aimed at end users. Rant and rave all you like about activation not being part of legally owning the license, go for it till your blue in the face.

MS licensing is trash, I sell the damn products. Its centric around maximum profit and if I can use the services provided BY MICROSOFT and that allows me, using their systems, to activate an OEM license on a new mainboard then who are you to stand there on your soapbox and naysay people who have done it? Voluntary MS Licensing Enforcers? Whatever next.

 

[kidloco]

My argument would be so cut and dry, as clear as day it was not worth presenting. But as you seem to be ignorant to it, I'll outline it for you.

The end user owns their OEM license, on their pre-built box. And you sit there, and dictate that all repairs would be handled by the manufacturer?

Do you have any idea how many companies sell OEM licenses on pre-built systems? How do you know all of them offer warranty and repair services? You expect people to return their equipment or have it repaired by the original manufacturer until said equipment is retired from use?

Are you high? Most companies will cease support on an end of line product, and in your eyes, a customer, who now has a broken PC is expected by Microsoft to never be exposed to the issues of OEM licensing and therefore not 'accidentally' re-activate a product unknowing of the so called EULA with an OEM then be open to, on paper, litigation? All because they would never seek a 3rd party repair?

Wow, just wow.

It's a public telephone service, actively supported from within the OS with clear step by step instructions. It's bloody well aimed at end users. Rant and rave all you like about activation not being part of legally owning the license, go for it till your blue in the face.

MS licensing is trash, I sell the damn products. Its centric around maximum profit and if I can use the services provided BY MICROSOFT and that allows me, using their systems, to activate an OEM license on a new mainboard then who are you to stand there on your soapbox and naysay people who have done it? Voluntary MS Licensing Enforcers? Whatever next.

You sir, should you ever decide to run for Prime Minister, have my vote

 

[snowdog]

Say your motherboard died, that's it.

Buying the same piece of software twice just because you upgrade your mainboard . I doubt MS go after pc enthousiasts who have used the same oem copy on more than 1 board.

 

[XCougar]

Perhaps we should email Micro$oft, and get their opinion on the topic. =D

 

[kylew]

In a home context, probably none if you don't care about it, but in a business environment, especially if you are a big consumer of MS products, the activation is meaningless. The check your licences not your activations.



They are. In fact no home consumer should be buying an OEM licence for themselves http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17969729&highlight=hobbyists

I didn't mention a business environment. Of course in a business environment it matters.

It's like the use of photoshop. You can pretty much guarantee that all teenagers/young adults that use it on their own home PCs, are using a cracked copy.

I use a cracked copy, not because I 'don't want to pay' but becuase there's no way I could afford to pay. There's a lot of software I use that haven't purchased, like some CAD packages and rendering engines. Not because I don't want to support the devs or I'm trying to get something for free.

It's because I can't afford the asking price, and I'm not using them for professional purposes.

I work in a CAD office, so any CAD work I do that makes money is done on systems that have licenses for the software I use, while at home, I use cracked software to basically improve my skills and usage of these applications.

I use cracked rendering software to practice producing 3D imagery so I can put it forward to my work place as a potential software for them to use and purchase licenses for.

Now, if I were to go freelance and be self employed, then I would purchase the software. My view on it is that morally it's not a problem unless you're making money out of said software.

I'm pretty sure adobe takes that view too. They don't care about the kids and teenagers using cracked copies of their software. They're bothered about the so called professionals like design studios, that are making money from work that needs photoshop.

Which is the way it should be really.

I couldn't buy some of the expensive software I use without actually knowing how to use it anyway, but I feel that it's good that I do use it because I am making people aware of the software that otherwise wouldn't be.

Fryrender is an example, yes I'm using a cracked copy at home to practise gettings to grips with the software. There's a demo, but it's far to restrictive to show what actual usability is like.

So I'm using a cracked copy to pracise with. With the intention of arguing a case for the software at work as a project of mine is to evaluate the software that we use and present a suitable rendering package to improve the quality of the work that we do.

Which I would class as the home environment anyway.

But personally, I wouldn't use software for finiancal gain if I didn't have the license to use it.

 

[Brian Stuart]

I didn't mention a business environment. Of course in a business environment it matters.

It's like the use of photoshop. You can pretty much guarantee that all teenagers/young adults that use it on their own home PCs, are using a cracked copy.

I use a cracked copy, not because I 'don't want to pay' but becuase there's no way I could afford to pay. There's a lot of software I use that haven't purchased, like some CAD packages and rendering engines. Not because I don't want to support the devs or I'm trying to get something for free.

It's because I can't afford the asking price, and I'm not using them for professional purposes.

I work in a CAD office, so any CAD work I do that makes money is done on systems that have licenses for the software I use, while at home, I use cracked software to basically improve my skills and usage of these applications.

I use cracked rendering software to practice producing 3D imagery so I can put it forward to my work place as a potential software for them to use and purchase licenses for.

Now, if I were to go freelance and be self employed, then I would purchase the software. My view on it is that morally it's not a problem unless you're making money out of said software.

I'm pretty sure adobe takes that view too. They don't care about the kids and teenagers using cracked copies of their software. They're bothered about the so called professionals like design studios, that are making money from work that needs photoshop.

Which is the way it should be really.

I couldn't buy some of the expensive software I use without actually knowing how to use it anyway, but I feel that it's good that I do use it because I am making people aware of the software that otherwise wouldn't be.

Fryrender is an example, yes I'm using a cracked copy at home to practise gettings to grips with the software. There's a demo, but it's far to restrictive to show what actual usability is like.

So I'm using a cracked copy to pracise with. With the intention of arguing a case for the software at work as a project of mine is to evaluate the software that we use and present a suitable rendering package to improve the quality of the work that we do.

Which I would class as the home environment anyway.

But personally, I wouldn't use software for finiancal gain if I didn't have the license to use it.

So you could justify stealing a car and as long as you don't use it as a taxi then that is morally defensible.
You really need to look at your value system

 

[The Deuce]

My argument would be so cut and dry, as clear as day it was not worth presenting. But as you seem to be ignorant to it, I'll outline it for you.

The end user owns their OEM license, on their pre-built box. And you sit there, and dictate that all repairs would be handled by the manufacturer?

Do you have any idea how many companies sell OEM licenses on pre-built systems? How do you know all of them offer warranty and repair services? You expect people to return their equipment or have it repaired by the original manufacturer until said equipment is retired from use?

Are you high? Most companies will cease support on an end of line product, and in your eyes, a customer, who now has a broken PC is expected by Microsoft to never be exposed to the issues of OEM licensing and therefore not 'accidentally' re-activate a product unknowing of the so called EULA with an OEM then be open to, on paper, litigation? All because they would never seek a 3rd party repair?

Wow, just wow.

It's a public telephone service, actively supported from within the OS with clear step by step instructions. It's bloody well aimed at end users. Rant and rave all you like about activation not being part of legally owning the license, go for it till your blue in the face.

MS licensing is trash, I sell the damn products. Its centric around maximum profit and if I can use the services provided BY MICROSOFT and that allows me, using their systems, to activate an OEM license on a new mainboard then who are you to stand there on your soapbox and naysay people who have done it? Voluntary MS Licensing Enforcers? Whatever next.

Excellent reply...couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[XCougar]

So you could justify stealing a car and as long as you don't use it as a taxi then that is morally defensible.
You really need to look at your value system

Hmmm I dont think its that severe.

He does have a point though, if he didnt know the software then he wouldnt have bought it, its a tricky situation to judge.

 

[Brian Stuart]

Hmmm I dont think its that severe.

He does have a point though, if he didnt know the software then he wouldnt have bought it, its a tricky situation to judge.

Trial versions? I believe most expensive software suites have trials.

The man is trying to justify software theft.

 

[XCougar]

Its still illegal I know, but I also know some trials are naff.