Your OEM Installation is not valid.

I will use the same argument I always use in this situation - doesn't sit well with some people but hay, the truth doesn't always.

If you do not plan on sticking to the license agreement of the software then simply download it off a warez site.
If you are using OEM where you shouldn't, moving OEM from one motherboard to another, illegally using educational versions, installing your copy on more than one machine.
DON'T BOTHER PAYING ANYTHING
Because although you feel you're "doing the right thing" by paying some money for the product, you are using it outside of the license agreement and are no more legal than somebody who has just warzed a copy.

When I was much younger, in the days of DOS 5 and Windows 3 I will admit to OS theft.
I don't think I paid for any version of DOS or Windows until Windows 98 (Windows 95 was given to me as I was on the beta test team).
Now I've grown up and realised that the world doesn't owe me a living, so I buy all my software.
All three computers in my house are fully legal with regards the software installed on them.

I've more or less given up on trying to get this over to other people.
 
If Microsoft wanted to sue a customer over using a OEM licence then the customer should just turn round and tell them "make it a damn sight easier to understand what the legality of the situation is!". I really really REALLY do not see the point in MS bothering with Retail and OEM versions since (as people have said) MS don't bother about people re-activating their OEM licences on new hardware so it is their problem.

If Microsoft just made made one version of Windows 7 (for example) and it was simply called Windows 7 (non of this Home, Ultimate twaddle) and lose the OEM stuff then all of a sudden things become a lot easier. They could then drop the price of the software by a vast amount since everybody would be buying one product and this would then cut down on pirated copies of Windows because it would only cost £20 or something daft to buy a licence!

Make a little bit of money per person and sell to a lot of people rather than trying to fleece everybody!

Stoner81.
 
Stoner81 said:
If Microsoft wanted to sue a customer over using a OEM licence then the customer should just turn round and tell them "make it a damn sight easier to understand what the legality of the situation is!". I really really REALLY do not see the point in MS bothering with Retail and OEM versions since (as people have said) MS don't bother about people re-activating their OEM licences on new hardware so it is their problem.
Click to expand...

Thing is they are totally different license models, OEM, it's the machine thats licensed. Retail is the holder of the license (transferable)

They need the cheap option I guess for OEMs who shift 1000s of machines, and at same time don't want the majority of licenses then resold on the market (in effect they would kill future sales)

Maybe they should just make the price difference say £10... £10 is enough to make OEMs stick with the model of licensing, and £10 is not enough to stop joe public buying the retail copy.

I just think it's crazy when everyone has decided 'oh I'll buy the oem copy because it's cheaper', in reality by not following the EULA they may of well just got a cracked copy.

Windows is not donationware, you can't decide how much you think you should pay... thats why the small print is there to make sure you use the correct copy.

Piping up and saying 'at least I've payed something' is no good... it's like chucking a £1 coin at a petrol station attendant but driving away with £1.50 of fuel :)
 
They could just include the licence fee on the price of the machine rather than using OEM licensing this would then come under Retail licensing (if I have not got my wires crossed) and would then mean that MS could reduce the price for Windows since so many people buy pre-built system so they would make more money and because the licence fee's are lower then more enthusiasts would buy licences rather than using cracked copies. If I bought a pre-built machine then I would expect to be able to use the licence on any machine that I wanted to do (1 machine at a time of course) because I paid for it therefore it is mine. Why MS insist on making things so hard it's like trying ice skate up hill?

The other way to do it maybe then for them would to just stop with OEM being available to the general public and only allow businesses to use OEM licensing, this way then big stores who shift 1000's of machines will still be able to use them, MS get their cut and the customer is happy. In the mean time drop the price for Windows to something far more affordable and get rid of this Home, Premium, Ultimate rubbish and just offer one product then they would maximize sales surely?

Stoner81.
 
Last edited:
stoofa said:
I will use the same argument I always use in this situation - doesn't sit well with some people but hay, the truth doesn't always.

If you do not plan on sticking to the license agreement of the software then simply download it off a warez site.
If you are using OEM where you shouldn't, moving OEM from one motherboard to another, illegally using educational versions, installing your copy on more than one machine.
DON'T BOTHER PAYING ANYTHING
Because although you feel you're "doing the right thing" by paying some money for the product, you are using it outside of the license agreement and are no more legal than somebody who has just warzed a copy.

When I was much younger, in the days of DOS 5 and Windows 3 I will admit to OS theft.
I don't think I paid for any version of DOS or Windows until Windows 98 (Windows 95 was given to me as I was on the beta test team).
Now I've grown up and realised that the world doesn't owe me a living, so I buy all my software.
All three computers in my house are fully legal with regards the software installed on them.

I've more or less given up on trying to get this over to other people.
Click to expand...

Opinion, and that's all it is.
 
Dano said:
Opinion, and that's all it is.
Click to expand...

couldn't be further from the truth, it's the EULA which you agree to, you either follow it or don't, if you don't why bother in the first place

you can't purchase a software LICENSE and choose not to follow the EULA, that makes your purchase null and void and in breach (ie - illegal)
 
Flukester said:
couldn't be further from the truth, it's the EULA which you agree to, you either follow it or don't, if you don't why bother in the first place

you can't purchase a software LICENSE and choose not to follow the EULA, that makes your purchase null and void and in breach (ie - illegal)
Click to expand...

Wrong, it breeches the EULA and that is all it does, it does not automatically make it illegal, they are two different things.
 
Flukester said:
couldn't be further from the truth, it's the EULA which you agree to, you either follow it or don't, if you don't why bother in the first place

you can't purchase a software LICENSE and choose not to follow the EULA, that makes your purchase null and void and in breach (ie - illegal)
Click to expand...
I don't think it's quite that simple - the almighty MS EULA isn't some kind of divine revelation which may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. It doesn't override English or European law, and IMO there's enough ambiguity and obfuscation in some of MS's licensing terms to make the situation less than black-and-white, at least in certain circumstances.

For instance, I'd definitely like to see a test case where MS took someone to court for installing and activating an OEM Windows on a second motherboard. The established wisdom, certainly on this forum, is that activation in and of itself doesn't legitimise an installation, but given that MS have publicly stated that "Activation is the process of ensuring that Windows on your computer is used according to the Microsoft Software License Terms" (my bold), I wonder if there's a good case for claiming that someone could "reasonably" infer that their successfully activated installation was legitimate, and that they were acting in good faith by continuing to use it. That's something only a court is empowered to decide, and a judge may choose to kick specific contract terms into touch if he decides they're unfair or unreasonable - MS aren't normally shy about enforcing their IP rights, and their reluctance to press this particular issue suggests to me that they're less than confident about the outcome. Either that, or they're simply happy to pocket the proceeds from selling OEM copies in vast numbers to the public rather than risk losing sales to piracy, Linux or something even worse, in the full knowledge that they're not being used according to the licence terms (which I imagine wouldn't sit well with a court if they subsequently tried to issue proceedings).

I had a similar discussion with someone here a while back (can't remember who, it may have been Burnsy) but needless to say, in the absence of any actual case law, it's really all just mental masturbation. Or opinion, as Dano suggested.

I nearly said "mutual masturbation", which would have been very, very wrong...
 
The fact that Microsoft allow re-activation on new systems without asking the revelant questions to ascertain if it is new hardware is also very telling, in my opinion of course :)
 
But it's Microsoft's decision what to put in a license agreement.
Of course this cannot breach law - nobody for a second is suggesting that MS can attempt to enforce somethign in the license agreement that would go against country law.
That is why the EULA is different for each country.

However it is quite legitimate to put into a license "May not be transferred from one device to another" - this certainly doesn't go against any country law.
Various other features of the EULA also do not break any country law.

The fact is, with Windows half the people out there don't pay for it and won't pay for it.
Another percentgae pay something for it, then break the EULA, so are in no different position to those that thieved it in the first place.

It isn't the EULA according to any country law, in most people's eye it's the EULA according to "my own opinions and how I feel about it at any given point of the day".
Somehow people think that chucking £80 at a retailer for their OEM copy somehow gives them the rights to do what they like with the license.
As I've said before, don't bother, pay nothing and have exactly the same license just as license legal - just nick it.

There are numerous licenses - OEM, Retail, Educational, Volume, Site, all of them have their own T&C's explaining where they can and cannot be used, their resale etc.
Just because MS haven't taken people to court - why does that make people feel that they should be able to abuse the system?

OEM software cannot ever disappear.
Depending on your size OEM licenses for Windows can get extremely cheap (just how much do you think Dell pay per Windows license?)
But OEM is not designed to be a flexible license - you pay for flexability.

If you buy a plane ticket which is non-transferrable, non-refundable and for "cattle class" do you feel you should be able to sit in 1st class, transfer it around to your mate or even get a refund?
No, you pay "cheap" for the non-flexible option and your options are limited.
Pay a little more and you end up with a flexible product that allows you to do more.
 
stoofa said:
I will use the same argument I always use in this situation - doesn't sit well with some people but hay, the truth doesn't always.

If you do not plan on sticking to the license agreement of the software then simply download it off a warez site.
If you are using OEM where you shouldn't, moving OEM from one motherboard to another, illegally using educational versions, installing your copy on more than one machine.
DON'T BOTHER PAYING ANYTHING
Because although you feel you're "doing the right thing" by paying some money for the product, you are using it outside of the license agreement and are no more legal than somebody who has just warzed a copy.

When I was much younger, in the days of DOS 5 and Windows 3 I will admit to OS theft.
I don't think I paid for any version of DOS or Windows until Windows 98 (Windows 95 was given to me as I was on the beta test team).
Now I've grown up and realised that the world doesn't owe me a living, so I buy all my software.
All three computers in my house are fully legal with regards the software installed on them.

I've more or less given up on trying to get this over to other people.
Click to expand...

+1 Agreed and I also am a reformed character, I do have a legal copy of Dos 5 though.
 
Prove it, legally.

EULA: By responding to this post you agree that Dano is in fact correct and that it is nothing more than opinion.

Legally binding that is, just like EULA's on software ;)

By the way, all my windows are either retail or OEM on their original machines, jumping to conclusions makes you look like an idiot.
 
Dano said:
By the way, all my windows are either retail or OEM on their original machines, jumping to conclusions makes you look like an idiot.
Click to expand...

Then why post in a thread about something totally different, this is about PCs using OEM software purchased by the end user. OEM is not for purchase / installation by end users period.

I don't need to 'prove it' as I understand the way the license works and have read the EULA, if you are unsure and don't want to read it, why not ring up microsoft licensing and ask them :) (though as you say you don't care as you have not licensed your machines in this way)
 
Flukester said:
Then why post in a thread about something totally different, this is about PCs using OEM software purchased by the end user. OEM is not for purchase / installation by end users period.
Click to expand...

You were the one who questioned my comments, did you not want an answer?

I don't need to 'prove it' as I understand the way the license works and have read the EULA, if you are unsure and don't want to read it, why not ring up microsoft licensing and ask them :) (though as you say you don't care as you have not licensed your machines in this way)
Click to expand...

Point missed, again. I know what the EULA states, that does not make it law, period.
 
There was a thread on this ages ago when I highlighted the MS clarification. It boils down to this: If you want/need to be legal you need to adhere to the EULA. If you don't care, then it probably doesn't make any difference to you as the consequences are likely to be zero.
 
bottom line is i think somebody somewhere high up at microsoft just doesnt give a damn.

At least they are getting some money. because as the link in the OP points out, there is zero actual guidance or information from microsoft.

If they aren't going to help you or care, just use them !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom