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

[stoofa]

You need to look at your comparison system.

Where does stealing a car even come in to it?

Are so stupid that you think stealing a car is comparable to using software without a license?

If you got it right, you should have said:

It's like copying a car and then making and selling it as your own, yes, that's stealing.

While it's impossible, if you want to use a car to make your point, saying that some one has some sort of device that copies a car, and they go and copy some ones car, are they stealing? No way, I don't even know what it would be classed as, but in no way is it stealing.

Stealing is taking something from the owner, to which they are then left without.

You can call it what you like.
However the bottom line is:

You are getting an item that should cost you money, for nothing.
This is being done without the owners consent.

So you can technically call this what you like.
If I break into a car, take it for a drive and then abandon it, technically what I've done is "Taking without consent".
Sorry - but this is just stealing with some "classy name".

 

[kylew]

You can call it what you like.
However the bottom line is:

You are getting an item that should cost you money, for nothing.
This is being done without the owners consent.

So you can technically call this what you like.
If I break into a car, take it for a drive and then abandon it, technically what I've done is "Taking without consent".
Sorry - but this is just stealing with some "classy name".

Still rubbish.

You're forgetting what actually happens. You aren't 'taking' the software you're using a copy of it. Drama enhancement again.

Stop using car analogies because as I have said, the equivalent is making a copy of the car and driving off in that, and since that's not possible, it doesn't stand as a comparison.

 

[Burnsy2023]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/quick-start/activation-faq.aspx

So the change of the OEM mobo by a non-OEM party requires re-activation, and activation is the process of determining proper use - aka the telephone call to Microsoft. Thus an activation code from the MS helpline is acceptance of proper use.

Proper use != total adherance of the licence.

Ignoring the fact the the OP is an OEM if he built his own machine... Unless you can get Steve Ballmer to join these forums and explicitly contradict both his own website and the actions of the MS Activation hotline, I'll rest my case.

No, the OP is a System Builder and a SB is required to distribute the machines they make, so an OEM should not use a machine they have made using an OEM licence.

And I can get MS to contradict themselves easily enough:

Q. Can a PC with an OEM Windows operating system have its motherboard upgraded and keep the same license? What if it was replaced because it was defective?


A. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer" to which Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required. If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC as long as the replacement motherboard is the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by the manufacturer's warranty.



The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the end-user license agreement (EULA) and the support of the software covered by that EULA. The EULA is a set of usage rights granted to the end-user by the PC manufacturer and relates only to rights for that software as installed on for that particular PC. The System Builder is required to support the software on that original PC. Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PC with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left standing" that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created. The original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture.

http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentPage.aspx?pageid=552846

I have had talks with both the MS OEM Licensing Team and their Volume Licensing Team to clarify this about a year and a bit ago.

My 'logic' is a passing understanding of the law. Providing the caller doesn't mislead MS, the issue of an activation code will be seen as acceptance of proper use of the licence. If MS choose to give out activation codes to 'non-deserving cases' that is their own concern, but in according to their published information, this process explicitly 'proves adherence to the licence'.

It doesn't prove adherance to the licence, it helps MS see if it is being used in ways it shouldn't but doesn't prove that it is a fully licensed product. Again, I could easily find a reference that contradicts the activation page.

 

[cjmUK]

Burnsy2023, I'll accept that you have 'evidence' to contradict mine - both are from reputable sources, i.e. MS themselves. And we both have first hand experience of Microsoft employees stating each of our cases...

So then it boils down to which account is the truth. And in a sense they both are.

But the fact that the Activation Hotline provide a new activation key is the acceptance that MS is happy with the use of the licence - this may go against the rules as they have been quite explicitly conveyed to you, but legally this is all that matters. If MS provide an activation code, even though it may not be deserved according to their rules, then they are choosing to accept that licence as being used properly.

If you state publicly two different interpretations of the rules, and then your agents act according to one interpretation (ie. the Activation Hotline approves the new activation), you legally can't then argue that the end user is in breach of the rules. [This argument ignores the fact that your version of the rules are from the private OEM site, and that my version are stated on the main (public) website].

To repeat myself, all bets are off if the end-user lies about their circumstances ('my mobo failed...'), even if the chances of them getting rumbled are infinitesimally remote. In such a situation the end user will have achieved the activation fraudulently.

 

[CaptainCrash]

No, this is a fundamental concept with activation. MS don't have exhastive methods for proving licence adherement, but that's not what activation is for. Activation is a means to link the product key to the hardware to prevent large scale piracy only, not to check that a licence is totally valid.

From the quick start activation FAQ:

"Activation, also known as Microsoft Product Activation or Windows Product Activation, is an anti-piracy technology designed to verify that Microsoft software products are legitimately licensed."

That much at least seems pretty clear to me.

Proper use != total adherance of the licence.

....

It doesn't prove adherance to the licence, it helps MS see if it is being used in ways it shouldn't but doesn't prove that it is a fully licensed product.

Sorry, but this all just looks like so much semantic wiggling - you now seem to be drawing a completely arbitrary distinction between "licensed" and "fully licensed" or "total adherance of the licence". And it's completely beyond me how "proper use" doesn't equal "total adherance of the licence" - are you saying that if someone's "slightly" breaking the licence terms, this may still be "proper use"...?

And I can get MS to contradict themselves easily enough: ...

Again, I could easily find a reference that contradicts the activation page. ...

So what are you saying here - MS's licencing information is a confused, self-contradictory mess, but any reference that indicates the end user is breaking the licence terms is always right, and the one that states they aren't is always wrong?

I'm quite sure that a court would take exactly the opposite view...

 

[Burnsy2023]

If you state publicly two different interpretations of the rules, and then your agents act according to one interpretation (ie. the Activation Hotline approves the new activation), you legally can't then argue that the end user is in breach of the rules. [This argument ignores the fact that your version of the rules are from the private OEM site, and that my version are stated on the main (public) website].

Actually this isn't quite true. If this came to court, only the wording of the SB licence and EULA would be considered, which means it would be up to the court to decide when a machine is no longer the same machine.

 

[Burnsy2023]

From the quick start activation FAQ:

"Activation, also known as Microsoft Product Activation or Windows Product Activation, is an anti-piracy technology designed to verify that Microsoft software products are legitimately licensed."

That much at least seems pretty clear to me.

How can I put this....it's badly worded and verging on incorrect and I know how cheeky that must seem to you.

Sorry, but this all just looks like so much semantic wiggling - you now seem to be drawing a completely arbitrary distinction between "licensed" and "fully licensed" or "total adherance of the licence". And it's completely beyond me how "proper use" doesn't equal "total adherance of the licence" - are you saying that if someone's "slightly" breaking the licence terms, this may still be "proper use"...?

My point is that 'proper use' as per activation may only check a few terms of the licence and so being activated does not necessarily mean fully licenced.

So what are you saying here - MS's licencing information is a confused, self-contradictory mess

MS' public licensing info is just that, confused and self-contradictory. It annoys me a lot, hence why I went to the effort to check with the people who make the policy.

, but any reference that indicates the end user is breaking the licence terms is always right, and the one that states they aren't is always wrong?

Not at all, I'm not trying to be anti-consumer at all, I'm just trying to convey MS policy as I know it from the MS experts.

I'm quite sure that a court would take exactly the opposite view...

I'm sure a court would take the right, legal view

 

[cjmUK]

Actually this isn't quite true. If this came to court, only the wording of the SB licence and EULA would be considered, which means it would be up to the court to decide when a machine is no longer the same machine.

This is my whole point: If it came to court, all of Microsoft's official documentation would be considered, including websites and EULAs. Publishers would have you believe the EULA is the be-all and end-all, but it isn't.

You can't have one rule in the small print of the EULA and then publicly proclaim something different on the Activation FAQ of the company's main site.

Hence why MS are fairly relaxed about the application of the rules - all it takes is for a disgruntled home-builder to lodge a claim in the small claims court... One lost case could open the floodgates.

So unless the end user is taking the p*ss, they usually allow activation. And as I've repeated many times - the issuing of the activation code is acceptance of proper use.

 

[Burnsy2023]

This is my whole point: If it came to court, all of Microsoft's official documentation would be considered, including websites and EULAs. Publishers would have you believe the EULA is the be-all and end-all, but it isn't.

Actually, yes it is. Both the SB licence and EULA will be the only thing considered as they are the only contracts you enter into. No websites would be considered.

You can't have one rule in the small print of the EULA and then publicly proclaim something different on the Activation FAQ of the company's main site.

It's not another rule, but clarification on the wording of the EULA.

Hence why MS are fairly relaxed about the application of the rules - all it takes is for a disgruntled home-builder to lodge a claim in the small claims court... One lost case could open the floodgates.

No it wouldn't. MS wouldn't defend the case, they wouldn't even answer the summons, therefore you'd win be default without having a judgement.

So unless the end user is taking the ****, they usually allow activation.

Firstly, please fully star out any swearies.

Secondly, they allow activation when they shouldn't for two reasons. 1) They don't train the staff enough on the ins and outs of fairly unsusal cases, 2) if they were to get all the facts the conversation would last a small lifetime and the cusomter would feel like they're being interrogated by the spanish inquisition. That's not good for business.

And as I've repeated many times - the issuing of the activation code is acceptance of proper use.

And as I've said many more times, that simply isn't true.

 

[CaptainCrash]

How can I put this....it's badly worded and verging on incorrect and I know how cheeky that must seem to you.

How on earth can it be "verging on incorrect," when it's published by MS themselves? Surely any contradictory reference published elsewhere would be at least equally "verging on incorrect"? It doesn't seem so much "cheeky," as just plain daft - how is the user supposed to know what MS "meant" when it's not what they *said*? The whole thing is a legal nonsense.

My point is that 'proper use' as per activation may only check a few terms of the licence and so being activated does not necessarily mean fully licenced.

I notice your use of the terms "may" and "not necessarily" here.

I don't know the precise technical details of MS's activation mechanism (do you?), but at the end of the day that's their business, and it doesn't alter the basic premise that an activated system can reasonably be deemed to be legally licenced. In my own opinion of course...

Not at all, I'm not trying to be anti-consumer at all, I'm just trying to convey MS policy as I know it from the MS experts.

It might be MS policy to demand a user's firstborn child, doesn't mean it's legally enforceable...

And as I've said many more times, that simply isn't true.

No, in your opinion it isn't true - you can say it as many more times as you like, but in the absence of a court ruling it is simply that, an opinion. - (edit: in the interests of fairness, that obviously applies to my position and cjmUK's also)..

 

[cjmUK]

Actually, yes it is. Both the SB licence and EULA will be the only thing considered as they are the only contracts you enter into. No websites would be considered.

Not true. The website is a key reference for when you are trying to determine the most appropriate licence, and as such it is a key 'document' that forms part of the sales process.

They don't train the staff enough on the ins and outs of fairly unsusal cases

Their problem not ours.

if they were to get all the facts the conversation would last a small lifetime and the cusomter would feel like they're being interrogated by the spanish inquisition. That's not good for business.

That is their choice, not ours.

And as I've said many more times, that simply isn't true.

It is. IANAL but I do know enough about the law to be sure of this.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating; MS are not averse to the odd bit of litigation, if they felt they had a case, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to test it in court. But they haven't.

Arguing the toss is one thing, but you are dishing out propaganda far more enthusiastically then MS ever would. I think we can draw our own conclusions from the way MS *do* conduct themselves, rather than the way they *could* according your understanding.

 

[Burnsy2023]

No, in MS' Licensing Team's opinion it isn't true

Fixed for you.

I notice your use of the terms "may" and "not necessarily" here.

Of course I did, otherwise you wouldn't be able to be activated and legal

I don't know the precise technical details of MS's activation mechanism (do you?)

Actually, yes I do, well not down to code, but I know a reasonable amount about the technical implementation

 

[Burnsy2023]

Not true. The website is a key reference for when you are trying to determine the most appropriate licence, and as such it is a key 'document' that forms part of the sales process.

Which may allow you to return the item as it's not 'as described' under SOGA but doesn't help us here. There is no legal basis for what you're saying.

Their problem not ours.

That is their choice, not ours.

I agree, but it illustrates my point of why activation does not mean that you are always properly licensed.

It is. IANAL but I do know enough about the law to be sure of this.

I'm not so sure about that.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating; MS are not averse to the odd bit of litigation, if they felt they had a case, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to test it in court. But they haven't.

Becuase it's not in their best interests like I've explained above.

Arguing the toss is one thing, but you are dishing out propaganda far more enthusiastically then MS ever would. I think we can draw our own conclusions from the way MS *do* conduct themselves, rather than the way they *could* according your understanding.

It's upto you what you do with your licence and whether it's valid. I'm not judging nor do I care about whether other people are legal. However, I have been responsible for licensing in several businesses and do care about keeping them fully licensed. Therefore I need to talk to MS about this regularly. I am also a registered MS partner and need to keep on top of licensing changes.

All I'm doing is trying to make sure you have a decent understanding of MS policy and licensing. If you do not wish to listen to me it is of little consequence, but lets not fill up this forum with simply erroneous information.

 

[Brian Stuart]

You need to look at your comparison system.

Where does stealing a car even come in to it?

Are so stupid that you think stealing a car is comparable to using software without a license?

If you got it right, you should have said:

It's like copying a car and then making and selling it as your own, yes, that's stealing.

While it's impossible, if you want to use a car to make your point, saying that some one has some sort of device that copies a car, and they go and copy some ones car, are they stealing? No way, I don't even know what it would be classed as, but in no way is it stealing.

Stealing is taking something from the owner, to which they are then left without.

Stop trying to justify your piracy. It is theft and you can dress it up anyway you want. Have you heard of intellectual property rights?
You never buy the software but only the right to use it. You do not do that so it is using the software without consent.

 

[cjmUK]

It's upto you what you do with your licence and whether it's valid. I'm not judging nor do I care about whether other people are legal. However, I have been responsible for licensing in several businesses and do care about keeping them fully licensed. Therefore I need to talk to MS about this regularly. I am also a registered MS partner and need to keep on top of licensing changes.

All I'm doing is trying to make sure you have a decent understanding of MS policy and licensing. If you do not wish to listen to me it is of little consequence, but lets not fill up this forum with simply erroneous information.

My licences are not the issue here, and yes you are judging whether other people are legal.

I too am responsible for large numbers of licences, and we need to keep on top of our group licensing position, which covers companies in 6 European countries. And yes... I'm speaking to my contact in the licensing team next month.

And I do have a decent understanding of MS licensing policy but also of basic tenets of law. But most importantly, I'm not a Microsoft sockpuppet, who clings to the version of reality that flies in the face of available evidence.

If you do not wish to listen to me, or ignore published MS documentation, or not seek proper legal advice, then it is of no consequence.

However, for the record, I have just spoken to our company lawyer who outlined the legal position as this:

If the EULA states that using the s/w on a PC with a new non-OEM mobo is a 'Fundamental Breach', the licence is ended. Thus the issue of an activation code means that you have been assign a new licence (under exactly the same terms and conditions).

If the EULA states that it is a 'Remediable Breach', then the licence does not directly end and that the issue of an activation code is the 'remedy' for the breach - in this case the remedy ensures that the same licence continues.

Regardless, if MS refuse you an activation code, they are neither providing you with a new licence, nor allowing a remedy to continue your existing one.

Thus - and this is the crux of the matter - if you are honest with MS and they supply you with an activation code, you are neither using your licence & s/w illegally or immorally.

Nevertheless, I'm sure MS lawyers could summon a counter-argument, but the fact that they haven't says it all.

 

[Morthoseth]

I've upgraded motherboards and reinstalled OEM countless times, it simply activates instantly, no prompt to call them and no prompt to do anything else. If its activating online, then i wont worry about it.

The day microsoft email me telling me i am breaking the liscence agreement, i'll do something about it - funnily enough i doubt they ever will, or ever care.

It doesnt justify 'piracy' at all, and i already know i am in the wrong, but after buying OEM incorrectly in the first place, i wont be paying out another ~£150+ on retail just for the sake of being 'liscence' legal.

Its on the same computer, just not the same motherboard.

 

[Matteysan]

Its on the same computer, just not the same motherboard.

So at what point does it not become the same computer?

Case?

 

[Morthoseth]

So at what point does it not become the same computer?

Case?

As long as it belongs to just me, a single person - its going to remain being called the same computer.

I've already explained that i know i am in the wrong, and until i'm told otherwise by Microsoft i'll not change my mind on the situation.

 

[Matteysan]

As long as it belongs to just me, a single person - its going to remain being called the same computer.

I've already explained that i know i am in the wrong, and until i'm told otherwise by Microsoft i'll not change my mind on the situation.

The thing i'm getting at don't think i'm singling you out on this at all this applies to anyone in this thread, When does the computer not become the same computer? You cannot say because the computer belongs to you it is the same computer.

A motherboard change is one of the most major changes within a computer. To me when you replace the motherboard with a new one that is not the same as the one you originally bought then it isn't the same computer. If you replaced the motherboard with the exact same one then it would be the same computer.

I'm not having a go at you I'm just generally interested.

 

[Morthoseth]

I have been through three motherboards, first one broke so i bought an exact copy of it, then i needed to upgrade and changed motherboards and components completely. I agree with you in what you say, the first time could be forgiven, as it was the same motherboard, the same components and so on.

The second time, i was in the wrong, but after upgrading my computer shelling out £100+ for another copy of vista, when my old copy would activate without issue wasn't at the top of my to do list.

Guilty, as charged - as are a great amount of people in this thread, if i could go back to the day vista was released, i'd have bought retail instead of OEM

So while i agree with everyone saying it is wrong, and against the liscence to do what i do, i also put it to you people, that if you were in the same situation already owning a copy of OEM as a home user, would you discard the disc and box, and re-purchase another copy?

That is my question i am interested in an answer for