Buying stuff from my university question...ive always been curious about this.

[bruceb]

Yes, if you pirate it, you may run into activation issues. More important, is how do you know a pirated copy is clean of any infections ? ? For safety, I would not do it. And it is unethical.

 

[gsaldivar]

The OP is a student who can legally buy Windows with the education discount. He was going to buy one copy, and then install that one copy on his brothers computer.

The software is offered at a discount to students for educational use.

The license cannot be transferred. His brother is not a student. The intended use is non-educational.

Therefore the license is made invalid.

The ethical confusion came from whether or he was violating the EULA by installing it on his brothers machine instead of his own.

The validity of the license (or lack thereof) is determined by the use, not the location where its installed.

 

[gsaldivar]

http://www.microsoft.com/student/en/us/windows/buynow/terms.aspx

That link will clear things up. There is absolutely no other requirements other than proving your a student.

From your own link:

This offer is non-transferable.

 

[Anteaus]

The software is offered at a discount to students for educational use.

The license cannot be transferred. His brother is not a student. The intended use is non-educational.

Therefore the license is made invalid.


The validity of the license (or lack thereof) is determined by the use, not the location where its installed.

Please post source where you read that it must be used for educational use. We assumed that was the case but in my research I found nothing that states that.

 

[Anteaus]

From your own link:

This offer is non-transferable.

The offer is non-transferable. I.e., the ability to buy it at a discount can't be given to someone else. That has nothing to do with the product.

 

[gsaldivar]

The offer is non-transferable. I.e., the ability to buy it at a discount can't be given to someone else. That has nothing to do with the product.

All Microsoft's software products are licensed, not sold.

Either you have a valid license or you don't.

In this case, the OP's brother would not.

 

[gsaldivar]

Please post source where you read that it must be used for educational use. We assumed that was the case but in my research I found nothing that states that.

The purchaser must show proof of enrollment at the time of purchase, and the license is not transferable from the student to a third-party. This means that only students will have a valid license to use the product. It's in your own link, you're just selectively interpreting it.

 

[Anteaus]

Please post verbatum what your reading. All I see having to do with transfers is

"Offer Eligibility:
This offer is available only to eligible students who attend an educational institution geographically located in the United States. This offer is non-transferable."

Says nothing about the license. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, that does explicitly say that it's a perpetual license so it will still be valid after the OP graduates if the OP goes through that particular offer. But as mentioned it's not transferable so giving it to his brother is a violation of the license making it void.

His school may have a separate agreement with MS with more or less restrictions, if he goes through them he'll have to abide by whatever that license says.

Call MS and see what they say, http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/howtobuy/eligible.aspx has a phone number to help you figure it out.

 

[gsaldivar]

Please post verbatum what your reading. Says nothing about the license. Perhaps I'm missing something.

"Eligible students are allowed to purchase up to one license from each of the numbered sections..."

You are purchasing a license. Not the software itself. This is the same for all Microsoft software products.

 

[Anteaus]

"Eligible students are allowed to purchase up to one license from each of the numbered sections..."

You are purchasing a license. Not the software itself. This is the same for all Microsoft software products.

Exactly. And what you do with that license after it is purchase is at the discretion of the buyer as long as you abide by the EULA. As purchaser, he has authority on which computer it is installed on. This is not exactly a complex subject. There are two components here. First, the ability to buy the license. Second, the license itself. The license itself has no inherient restrictions that differ from any other retail license. The ability the purchase that license has no bearing on it's scope.

As a student, he has the ability to buy the license at a discount. Once he owns the license, he can do whatever he wants within the scope of the license itself, which is the standard retail EULA, which allows him to install it on whichever machine he wants. As long as it resides on only one machine, it is irrelevant where that machine is geographically or to whom it belongs, as the buyer would still be the owner of the license. The computer is irrelevant. This isn't an OEM license that gets locked to the machine. I said it twice on purpose.

At this point you can agree to disagree, but you can't argue against the text. The offer in and of itself is the ability to buy at a discount, not the license. When it says the offer can't be transferred, it means that he as a student can't give his brother the power to buy the license instead of him. It says nothing about after it is purchased.

Example, I can't give you my Best Buy Premier Silver reward coupons to buy Windows 7 at a discount since they aren't transferable, but I can use them and then let you install the license. "Offer cannot be transferred" is a standard thing in retail. It's not MS hocus pocus to lock down the license. I'm going to bow out of this thread now. Good luck to the OP.

Have a good week everyone.

 

[gsaldivar]

When it says the offer can't be transferred, it means that he as a student can't give his brother the power to buy the license instead of him. It says nothing about after it is purchased.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this point.

You are trying to draw a distinction between the act of purchasing and the act of use, and concluding that the buyer is free to transfer the discounted license to anyone and that simply isn't true.

The purchaser is bound by the terms of the license for the duration of use, it says that right in the first sentence of the terms. That's also why this statement is included in the terms:

"Microsoft or an appointed vendor may contact you to verify that you are a current student. If documentation is not provided indicating that you are a current student, you will be liable to reimburse Microsoft for the difference between what you paid and the estimated retail price of the software."

The OP can purchase an install disc and give/sell it to his brother and probably never run into any problems. But the fact is that the terms of the EULA have not been met in this case, making the license itself invalid.

 

[Nothinman]

Exactly. And what you do with that license after it is purchase is at the discretion of the buyer as long as you abide by the EULA. As purchaser, he has authority on which computer it is installed on. This is not exactly a complex subject. There are two components here. First, the ability to buy the license. Second, the license itself. The license itself has no inherient restrictions that differ from any other retail license. The ability the purchase that license has no bearing on it's scope.

As a student, he has the ability to buy the license at a discount. Once he owns the license, he can do whatever he wants within the scope of the license itself, which is the standard retail EULA, which allows him to install it on whichever machine he wants. As long as it resides on only one machine, it is irrelevant where that machine is geographically or to whom it belongs, as the buyer would still be the owner of the license. The computer is irrelevant. This isn't an OEM license that gets locked to the machine. I said it twice on purpose.

At this point you can agree to disagree, but you can't argue against the text. The offer in and of itself is the ability to buy at a discount, not the license. When it says the offer can't be transferred, it means that he as a student can't give his brother the power to buy the license instead of him. It says nothing about after it is purchased.

Example, I can't give you my Best Buy Premier Silver reward coupons to buy Windows 7 at a discount since they aren't transferable, but I can use them and then let you install the license. "Offer cannot be transferred" is a standard thing in retail. It's not MS hocus pocus to lock down the license. I'm going to bow out of this thread now. Good luck to the OP.

Have a good week everyone.

If it was that simple why wouldn't everyone do that? Most people know at least one person involved with a school at some level.

 

[Diogenes2]

Do you think a lot of people who are aware of the option, don't do that ?

 

[GhettoFob]

OP should just ask the school whether it's OK to buy it for his brother.

 

[lowrider69]

lol, yeah, I never said anything about lying! I am a current student!

How about you do what you want and not ask people you don't know on a forum their opinion of it? We would have one less thread of finger pointing and babbling.

 

[ManBearPig]

How about you do what you want and not ask people you don't know on a forum their opinion of it? We would have one less thread of finger pointing and babbling.

Well hot damn I thought it'd be a simple question and someone here might know! I had no idea it'd turn out like this lol

 

[Nothinman]

Well hot damn I thought it'd be a simple question and someone here might know! I had no idea it'd turn out like this lol

Licensing questions always turn out like this because they're so convoluted and companies don't enforce them consistently. OEM licenses from MS are a great example because they'll usually have no problems activating it for you when you call even if it's a new machine although the license says it's only supposed to be valid for the machine with which it was purchased.

 

[bruceb]

Licenses should be really simple since in reality you are only buying the right to use the program. So it should say "This software is licensed for use by the purchaser on 1 or 2 machines and may not be resold" (or can be resold) as applicable.
Why is there the need for all the legalese that no one reads or understands, except maybe the attorney who wrote it ? (and I am sure if you ask 2 attorneys you get 2 different interpretations)

 

[Bill Brasky]

I get W7 for free from MSDNAA, my bro used my college email to get the 30 buck deal for his computer

I See nothing wrong with this

This.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Licenses should be really simple since in reality you are only buying the right to use the program. So it should say "This software is licensed for use by the purchaser on 1 or 2 machines and may not be resold" (or can be resold) as applicable.
Why is there the need for all the legalese that no one reads or understands, except maybe the attorney who wrote it ? (and I am sure if you ask 2 attorneys you get 2 different interpretations)

In fact, Copyright does not restrict use. Only copying, distribution, and derivative works.
If you own a lawfully-produced work (which is a tangible item, that contains the intangible work), then you are free to use it however you feel like.

Computer works are kind of a special case, since you have to make a copy (in RAM) in order to use it, so software companies have used that as a way to tack on all kinds of crazy restrictions on use, even though the thing that is legally restricted is copying, not use.

 

[VirtualLarry]

All Microsoft's software products are licensed, not sold.

Either you have a valid license or you don't.

In this case, the OP's brother would not.

That's a load of crap too. Microsoft SELLS lawfully-made works, containing their (intangible) software, into the free market. It has all of the elements of a sale. So to claim, after the fact, that nothing was sold, would be fraud on the part of Microsoft.

Copyright law explicitly refers to "lawfully-made works" in several places. Copyright law's writers intended for there to be a sale, of those tangible works, containing the intangible work, and for that lawfully-made work, sold into the open market, to convey certain rights, including rights of ownership, in such a way as that the work's use is unrestricted.

 

[Steltek]

That's a load of crap too. Microsoft SELLS lawfully-made works, containing their (intangible) software, into the free market. It has all of the elements of a sale. So to claim, after the fact, that nothing was sold, would be fraud on the part of Microsoft.

Copyright law explicitly refers to "lawfully-made works" in several places. Copyright law's writers intended for there to be a sale, of those tangible works, containing the intangible work, and for that lawfully-made work, sold into the open market, to convey certain rights, including rights of ownership, in such a way as that the work's use is unrestricted.

Unfortunately, your view isn't supported by the courts.

According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a major decision last year, EULAs are enforceable and software is licensed, not owned, if the EULA license language specifies this. The case is Autodesk vs Vernor, where Autodesk was seeking to keep a person named Timothy Vernor from reselling old Autocad licenses on eBay. Taken to its logical conclusion, this ruling could have broad effects on ownership of any form of digital media from software to music to CDs and DVDs.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...or-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/magic-words-trump-user-rights-ninth-circuit-ruling

In the end, only Congress can fix this issue by passing a law which applies the first sale doctrine to digital products (i.e. establishing the right to "own" a digital product).

Unfortunately for we users, it won't happen. Whenever Congress does address this type of issue we get stuck with unmitigated end-user unfriendly garbage like the DMCA.

 

[Nothinman]

This.

Just because you don't see a problem with it doesn't mean the law agrees with you.

 

[jsalpha2]

I haven't read the rules, but if I sign up for one night class at a community college, buy my software and never go to class, would I be ok.
Also my kid is in elementary school, not in college yet, is this age discrimination. He has a computer, and is a student.