how lenient is microsoft, reactivating windows 7

[Chiropteran]

The proof is in the fact that you're using the software, you can't get it installed without accepting the agreement. It's that simple. Whether the agreement is legally binding and enforceable would depend on the judge. All of that predisposes that MS comes after you singly, which is highly unlikely anyway.

That is not true. As evidence, I can point you at 100 employees of the company I work for who use windows XP and office daily and have never accepted a single license agreement.

Installing the software proves someone (or thing, if an inanimate object can enter into a legally binding agreement) has accepted the agreement, it does NOT prove that I personally accepted the agreement.

Besides that, accepting an agreement that can be deemed invalid is another reason why it isn't just that simple.

Of course as we both know it's a moot argument, Microsoft won't come after end users. Legal costs are too high for any potential returns, and if the case went poorly it would set a terrible precedent and possibly take away all the "power" of click through license agreements.

 

[Chiropteran]

You don't own Windows, you never did. You own a license to use the software under the terms of the licensing agreement. If you want the license to be transferable then you need to buy a license that allows that, it's that simple. Regulating that via law isn't necessary and would be plain stupid.

Regulation of Microsoft is already being done, in the European Union. Why do you think it would be stupid?

 

[Nothinman]

That is not true. As evidence, I can point you at 100 employees of the company I work for who use windows XP and office daily and have never accepted a single license agreement.

That's very different as the PC is owned by the employer so it's the company that has the agreement with MS. Attempting to conflate the two makes no sense at all to me. Although the employee would still be required to abide by the usage agreement, however I don't see how that's relevant here as I doubt many employees are transferring their work Windows licenses between PCs. And if they're doing it in a way that violates those licenses they should be fired.

Installing the software proves someone (or thing, if an inanimate object can enter into a legally binding agreement) has accepted the agreement, it does NOT prove that I personally accepted the agreement.

It's your PC so it's your responsibility for what's on it. I doubt a judge would by the argument that you're not bound because you had someone else install the software or you used some automated tool to avoid seeing the agreement. If anything that just proves intent to get around the license with silly shenanigans.

If you don't want to abide by the agreement the correct and moral thing to do is to not use the software. How hard is that to understand?

Besides that, accepting an agreement that can be deemed invalid is another reason why it isn't just that simple.

Of course as we both know it's a moot argument, Microsoft won't come after end users. Legal costs are too high for any potential returns, and if the case went poorly it would set a terrible precedent and possibly take away all the "power" of click through license agreements.

Until the individual agreement has been decided invalid by a court, you'd be stupid to break it and just hope it gets invalidate later. Unless of course you've hired a lawyer to review all of the agreements for the software that you want to violate and he agrees they'll be invalidated. But that seems a little bit extreme when the cost of the license is so cheap.

Yes of course, the point is most likely moot and no single user will ever have a direct conflict with MS over it. But that still doesn't make it ok to go around breaking all of them. That's the reason that crap like activation were put in place, because douchebags were violating the agreements and using MS' software without paying for the license.

Regulation of Microsoft is already being done, in the European Union. Why do you think it would be stupid?

I wasn't aware that the EU had made MS change their EULA so that all licenses are equally transferrable to different PCs. Do you have a link corroborating that?

 

[bigfatmike]

That's the point of the OEM discount. You get a cheaper license because there's no MS support (you're supposed to call the OEM, in this case you) and it's tied to the PC with which it was sold. As seepy83 said, if you talk MS into letting you activate the same license on a new motherboard you're violating the license and effectively using pirated software.

Sorry. That is about as off the wall as it gets. One party can always ask the other party for a change in the terms of the agreement. If the party at MS is authorized to hand out authentications and you accurately describe your situation and they activate your copy - no attorney in the world is going to try to claim you copy is pirated - not unless he is stark raving mad and got his law degree off a cracker jack box.

Bottom line is this: tell them exactly what you have and what you are doing. If they help you - your good. Then again they may not help you. But that is a different issue.

Finally, if they decide to help you there is not a legal issue and their is no ethical issue. You can always ask and they can always say no.

 

[Chiropteran]

If you don't want to abide by the agreement the correct and moral thing to do is to not use the software. How hard is that to understand?

You are using false logic. Laws ARE NOT morals. I can disagree with, even disobey a law while remaining completely moral, if the law itself is not moral. I feel there is no moral right to copyright, in any way shape or form. What is immoral about copying? It's how we have advanced as a society.

If everyone felt the same as you, we would still be living in caves and walking everywhere, because the one guy who invented the wheel first would have died with his invention and the rest of us would have the morals to not copy his invention.

 

[Chiropteran]

That's very different as the PC is owned by the employer so it's the company that has the agreement with MS. Attempting to conflate the two makes no sense at all to me. Although the employee would still be required to abide by the usage agreement, however I don't see how that's relevant here as I doubt many employees are transferring their work Windows licenses between PCs. And if they're doing it in a way that violates those licenses they should be fired.

Who is "they"? Who should be fired? The guy who used the computer, who never saw any of the license agreements that were supposedly broken? The guy who setup the computer, after it had been imaged by someone else, and also never saw any license agreements? The guy who created the image, and agreed to the licenses once but then re-used the same image on 50 PCs before distributing them? The guy who is that guys boss, who instructed him on what to do? The guy who is head of the IT department, who has a rough idea of what all is going on and doesn't but a stop to any of it? The CEO of the company, who has no idea about any of this but is ultimately responsible for the running of the company?

Which one should be fired? All of them?

Until the individual agreement has been decided invalid by a court, you'd be stupid to break it and just hope it gets invalidate later. Unless of course you've hired a lawyer to review all of the agreements for the software that you want to violate and he agrees they'll be invalidated. But that seems a little bit extreme when the cost of the license is so cheap.

Odd that you keep making such a point to claim that my actions are immoral, but you suggest just mindlessly paying Microsoft more money instead of making the moral choice to stand your ground and defend your rights.

Yes of course, the point is most likely moot and no single user will ever have a direct conflict with MS over it. But that still doesn't make it ok to go around breaking all of them. That's the reason that crap like activation were put in place, because douchebags were violating the agreements and using MS' software without paying for the license.

I never suggested breaking any agreement. It happens to be that my interpretation of what is a warranty repair is different from yours, apparently. While you may argue that you don't agree with my logic, you are not Microsoft and your opinion holds no legal weight.

I wasn't aware that the EU had made MS change their EULA so that all licenses are equally transferrable to different PCs. Do you have a link corroborating that?

You are adding words I didn't say. I said Microsoft was already being regulated by the EU, and then I asked why it would be stupid to regulate the license. They are already being regulated in other aspects, so why do you think the specific aspect of licence restrictions will never be regulated? But you know what? I don't think anyone will try to regulate that as long as Microsoft isn't enforcing it. Also, I don't think Microsoft will try to enforce it for just that reason. So I agree that it probably won't be regulated (but I wouldn't say it would be stupid to regulate it), simply because there is no need to regulate it as long as Microsoft isn't taking it's own restrictions seriously.

 

[rasczak]

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to defend a corporation which is only interested in making money and has no ethical or moral obligations whatsoever.

OEM license has never been tested in court AFAIK (please correct me if not), so don't act like your opinion is the true fact and only correct opinion. Until proven valid in court, OEM license is just a piece of paper. Also, breaking a license agreement isn't the same as breaking a law, so don't ever call it "illegal".

While I try to be fair to Microsoft and other software makers, some of the restrictions and rules are simply contradictory and/or nonsensical.

OEM license is tied to a pice of hardware, sure I can buy that. But I can't see how they can prevent you from changing your motherboard. As you and others have pointed out, it *IS* acceptable to change motherboards in a "warranty" repair. Who provides the warranty of a computer? The manufacturer. If you are building your own PC, YOU are the manufacturer. Any change you want to make to that PC can be qualified as "warranty" repair, if you want, so you can basically change the motherboard at will, IMO, if you built the computer yourself and used an OEM license.

That said, any other part of the computer can be replaced as well. You can justify it all the same way, so ultimately my opinion is that as long as you aren't using an OEM copy on two different computers at the same time, it's fine, regardless of any scary lawyer language in the license agreement. If Microsoft asks about my motherboard change, it was done UNDER WARRANTY, as it was, and as such is within the restrictions of the license.

I am amazed that people fail to understand business in general. Microsoft is in the Software business to MAKE MONEY. Why do you feel like it's your right to blatantly disregard the agreement set forth in their EULA? Because you paid $100 dollars for a piece of software? What I told you I purchased a game you made at $50 a license, but decided that I want to install it on every computer I own (10), would you be ok with that? Would you be ok with losing out on $450.00? Now multiply that by 1 million. You just lost out on 50 million dollars. Do you now see where Microsoft is coming from? As a business it just doesn't make sense.

today's entitlement attitude is just ridiculous. If you want to build a new PC, add your OS into your budget. it's pretty damn simple. Or use an open source distribution.

As far as you motherboard contention, if you purchase the same motherboard, sure, you should be allowed to activate your license. however, if you "upgrade" then you should not be allowed to. You've essentially changed your computer.

 

[kurt454]

I never understood why anyone would buy an OEM license in the first place. You can get an upgrade retail license for almost the same amount, and most people that actually buy Operating Systems have a previous copy of Windows around that makes their upgrade legit. And AFAIK upgrade licenses do not lock into the first motherboard they are installed on. I've moved my upgrade licensed installs to new machines with no problems.

 

[mv2devnull]

I feel there is no moral right to copyright, in any way shape or form. What is immoral about copying?

You are right, there is no reason to invent or produce anything because you will simply copy it without the inventor receiving no compensation or acknowledgement whatsoever for their efforts. Not even a copyleft.

 

[Nothinman]

Sorry. That is about as off the wall as it gets. One party can always ask the other party for a change in the terms of the agreement. If the party at MS is authorized to hand out authentications and you accurately describe your situation and they activate your copy - no attorney in the world is going to try to claim you copy is pirated - not unless he is stark raving mad and got his law degree off a cracker jack box.

Bottom line is this: tell them exactly what you have and what you are doing. If they help you - your good. Then again they may not help you. But that is a different issue.

Finally, if they decide to help you there is not a legal issue and their is no ethical issue. You can always ask and they can always say no.

Sure, if you explain the issue clearly and they still activate it then there's no problem. It may not have been said in this thread, but there's been a number of them that recommend just telling MS that you reinstalled with no hardware changes.

You are using false logic. Laws ARE NOT morals. I can disagree with, even disobey a law while remaining completely moral, if the law itself is not moral. I feel there is no moral right to copyright, in any way shape or form. What is immoral about copying? It's how we have advanced as a society.

If everyone felt the same as you, we would still be living in caves and walking everywhere, because the one guy who invented the wheel first would have died with his invention and the rest of us would have the morals to not copy his invention.

But your belief in the laws has no affect on whether you can be punished for violating them. You don't get a free pass simply because you don't like copyright. The right thing to do is to comply with the laws as they exist now and work to have the ones you don't agree with changed.

Who is "they"? Who should be fired? The guy who used the computer, who never saw any of the license agreements that were supposedly broken? The guy who setup the computer, after it had been imaged by someone else, and also never saw any license agreements? The guy who created the image, and agreed to the licenses once but then re-used the same image on 50 PCs before distributing them? The guy who is that guys boss, who instructed him on what to do? The guy who is head of the IT department, who has a rough idea of what all is going on and doesn't but a stop to any of it? The CEO of the company, who has no idea about any of this but is ultimately responsible for the running of the company?

Which one should be fired? All of them?

That depends on what happens. If they get audited and end up paying tens of thousands or more in fines, it sure as hell could be the entire IT staff that gets replaced and anyone up to the C level that knew about it and let it happen. But that's an internal decision that isn't relevant here.

Odd that you keep making such a point to claim that my actions are immoral, but you suggest just mindlessly paying Microsoft more money instead of making the moral choice to stand your ground and defend your rights.

Haha so you have the right to free use of their software simply because you don't like their agreement? So if a restaurant has a no smoking sign, I should smoke anyway and sue them when they throw me out in order to stand up for my right to smoke wherever I want?

I never suggested breaking any agreement. It happens to be that my interpretation of what is a warranty repair is different from yours, apparently. While you may argue that you don't agree with my logic, you are not Microsoft and your opinion holds no legal weight.

By that logic your interpretation of warranty repair and views on copyright bear no weight either.

You are adding words I didn't say. I said Microsoft was already being regulated by the EU, and then I asked why it would be stupid to regulate the license. They are already being regulated in other aspects, so why do you think the specific aspect of licence restrictions will never be regulated? But you know what? I don't think anyone will try to regulate that as long as Microsoft isn't enforcing it. Also, I don't think Microsoft will try to enforce it for just that reason. So I agree that it probably won't be regulated (but I wouldn't say it would be stupid to regulate it), simply because there is no need to regulate it as long as Microsoft isn't taking it's own restrictions seriously.

They were attacked for bundling extra software with Windows in order to take market share from competing software. That had nothing to do with the licensing agreements presented to their end users. They give their users no choice on the installation of IE and various other software that really isn't part of the OS. However they have license agreements that both allow you to transfer the license and those that don't. If you want the former you simply pay a little bit more for those rights, there's nothing wrong or illegal about that and it isn't an abuse of their monopoly power which is the source of the EU and America's problem with MS.

 

[seepy83]

I can't believe this thread is still alive. Abide by the licensing terms, or don't. If you don't, you're stealing the software. It's black and white.

 

[Chiropteran]

But your belief in the laws has no affect on whether you can be punished for violating them. You don't get a free pass simply because you don't like copyright. The right thing to do is to comply with the laws as they exist now and work to have the ones you don't agree with changed.

You are arguing in circles.

ME: I see a loophole, warranty repair is allowed, as the system builder I am the supplier of the warranty so any change I make is arguably a warranty repair.
YOU: You might have a loophole but it's immoral to abuse a loophole!
ME: I don't care if it's moral or not, I only care about the legal aspect.
YOU: But it's immoral!
ME: It's not immoral, because I don't beleive the law in question is a moral law.

Finally-

YOU: But your belief in the laws has no affect on whether you can be punished for violating them.

SEE ABOVE. I don't think it is either illegal or immoral. It's not immoral because law in question isn't moral, and it's not illegal because of my "loophole". If you are a lawyer and you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears, otherwise it is just your opinion vs mine.

That depends on what happens. If they get audited and end up paying tens of thousands or more in fines, it sure as hell could be the entire IT staff that gets replaced and anyone up to the C level that knew about it and let it happen. But that's an internal decision that isn't relevant here.

It is completely relevant, because the whole question was whether or not a click through license can even apply to someone who never agrees with it. So you feel that all of the employees involved could be held responsible for $10k or more in fines, even the end user employee who had no knowledge of the whole situation?

Haha so you have the right to free use of their software simply because you don't like their agreement? So if a restaurant has a no smoking sign, I should smoke anyway and sue them when they throw me out in order to stand up for my right to smoke wherever I want?

Why are you putting words in my mouth, I never said that. The point is, I'll any legal loophole I can as long as I feel it's fair and moral. If I felt as you suggest, I'd just steal a copy and never pay Microsoft anything. I never suggested such a thing.

By that logic your interpretation of warranty repair and views on copyright bear no weight either.

They have a tremendous weight, as my interpretations and opinions are the complete driving force in the decision I make. Yours are not. Just as you base your decisions off your own opinions and interpretations, not mine. See how it works?

They were attacked for bundling extra software with Windows in order to take market share from competing software. That had nothing to do with the licensing agreements presented to their end users. They give their users no choice on the installation of IE and various other software that really isn't part of the OS. However they have license agreements that both allow you to transfer the license and those that don't. If you want the former you simply pay a little bit more for those rights, there's nothing wrong or illegal about that and it isn't an abuse of their monopoly power which is the source of the EU and America's problem with MS.

Thanks for telling me what I already know. However, your explanation of the differences between OEM and Retail software licenses is incomplete. There are numerous other differences.

"Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows software and cannot be transferred to another computer once it is installed. To acquire Windows software with support provided by Microsoft please see our full package "Retail" product offerings."

Upon reading that it sounds like the main difference is that Retail includes support by Microsoft, so if you don't care about that you can save money by sticking with OEM version. "Can not be transferred to another computer" can be read in many ways, and at the very least I don't consider it to be transferred to a different computer just because I replace a motherboard as part of a CPU upgrade.

As the entire thread has made clear, there is some debate about the motherboard detail. You can't upgrade the motherboard, but you can replace it as a warranty repair. What if your existing motherboard fails, and is no longer available for sale? Is a similar model by the same manufacturer okay? What if it's a different chip set? What if you upgrade the CPU, and find the new CPU doesn't work properly in the old board, is that a valid reason to replace the board?

If you buy your computer from an OEM, it is the OEM that makes these decisions. If you build the computer yourself, you are the OEM, and the decisions are yours to make.

Then there is the other line of discussion that has been brought up, that apparently it used to be legal to build your own PC and use an OEM license and later this rule changed. Is it even legal to change a license retroactively like that? What is the limitation now, the computer must be "sold"? What if I just "sell" every computer I build to my puppy for $1? It's a lot of legal nonsense they try to put in to scare people but my feeling is most of it would hold no weight in court.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I updated the BIOS on my DH77DF board. And both Windows and Office wanted reactivation. I was like ?

 

[Nothinman]

You are arguing in circles.

SEE ABOVE. I don't think it is either illegal or immoral. It's not immoral because law in question isn't moral, and it's not illegal because of my "loophole". If you are a lawyer and you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears, otherwise it is just your opinion vs mine.

Violating copyright is illegal and EULAs have been ruled enforceable before so under certain circumstances, it is illegal. The motherboard replacement issue is an exception and sadly a vague one that can be abused to work around the agreement. But the main point to that comment was that your belief in the legality of copyright isn't required for you to be convicted of violating it.

And your comment about not believing in copyright tells me pretty much all I need to know about your contributions to this thread.

It is completely relevant, because the whole question was whether or not a click through license can even apply to someone who never agrees with it. So you feel that all of the employees involved could be held responsible for $10k or more in fines, even the end user employee who had no knowledge of the whole situation?

The end user never agreed to it, but the IT tech who did the install or the one who built the image did and yes, they need to be held accountable and their boss is accountable by virtue of being their boss and letting it happen. However far up it goes would depend on the situation.

Why are you putting words in my mouth, I never said that. The point is, I'll any legal loophole I can as long as I feel it's fair and moral. If I felt as you suggest, I'd just steal a copy and never pay Microsoft anything. I never suggested such a thing.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, you said you don't believe in copyright and that one should make "the moral choice to stand your ground and defend your rights." instead of "mindlessly paying Microsoft more money" and paying for the license. I'm not sure how that doesn't imply that you feel you should be able to use the software under whatever rules you specify regardless of the text of the license.

They have a tremendous weight, as my interpretations and opinions are the complete driving force in the decision I make. Yours are not. Just as you base your decisions off your own opinions and interpretations, not mine. See how it works?

Sure, but your opinions are at odds with copyright law as it stands right now. And I think that recommending someone break an agreement and potentially the law, even with a grey area loophole in it, is dubious at best.

Upon reading that it sounds like the main difference is that Retail includes support by Microsoft, so if you don't care about that you can save money by sticking with OEM version. "Can not be transferred to another computer" can be read in many ways, and at the very least I don't consider it to be transferred to a different computer just because I replace a motherboard as part of a CPU upgrade.

And since you're not a copyright lawyer it doesn't seem like a good idea for you to be recommending others break EULAs.

Basically the short version is that MS should stop the selling of OEM licenses to anyone that isn't an official System Builder or to fully define what they consider a new computer and how much leeway there is with regards to replacement parts so as to clear up the confusion that's put out there about those licenses.

 

[Wyndru]

Has anyone ever had an OEM manual re-activation (via phone) actually fail? I've done this a few times with completely different builds and not had an issue. Just this weekend I used an OEM key from one laptop on another and just called it in and it worked (it failed the online activation, but the phone worked). They were both Dell xps's though, maybe Dell has their own OEM keys that don't matter as long as it's Dell hardware?

 

[Nothinman]

Has anyone ever had an OEM manual re-activation (via phone) actually fail? I've done this a few times with completely different builds and not had an issue. Just this weekend I used an OEM key from one laptop on another and just called it in and it worked (it failed the online activation, but the phone worked). They were both Dell xps's though, maybe Dell has their own OEM keys that don't matter as long as it's Dell hardware?

I think the Dell images just make sure it has Dell firmware, not a specific model or serial number. When you called did you explain that you moved the OEM license to a new PC and they activated it anyway?

 

[Wyndru]

I think the Dell images just make sure it has Dell firmware, not a specific model or serial number. When you called did you explain that you moved the OEM license to a new PC and they activated it anyway?

No, the number I call for activation is automated, I 've never talked to anyone on their activation hotline. I just enter the code that win 7 gives me, then type in the code the automated system reads back to me.

 

[Nothinman]

No, the number I call for activation is automated, I 've never talked to anyone on their activation hotline. I just enter the code that win 7 gives me, then type in the code the automated system reads back to me.

Ah even better.

 

[Dessert Tears]

I never understood why anyone would buy an OEM license in the first place. You can get an upgrade retail license for almost the same amount, and most people that actually buy Operating Systems have a previous copy of Windows around that makes their upgrade legit.

The OEM license is a little cheaper, and I value keeping my old XP license over maybe moving the new W7 license eventually. If [post=33587235]my reasoning[/post] is faulty, could someone let me know?

I think the Dell images just make sure it has Dell firmware, not a specific model or serial number.

The three Acers that I've seen (netbook+ rebadged as Gateway, two identical netbooks bought at the same time) have the same W7 Product ID.

 

[seepy83]

The OEM license is a little cheaper, and I value keeping my old XP license over maybe moving the new W7 license eventually. If [post=33587235]my reasoning[/post] is faulty, could someone let me know?

If you're upgrading your existing computer to Windows 7, then you probably can't (legally) use an OEM license because you are not purchasing that license with a new PC.

As for dual-booting Win XP and Win 7...you might as well just install Win 7 and use the XP virtual machine if you need XP for any reason. No real reason to dual-boot with the Virtualization technology we have today.

 

[Dessert Tears]

If you're upgrading your existing computer to Windows 7, then you probably can't (legally) use an OEM license because you are not purchasing that license with a new PC.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's not ambiguous at all, and I should have noticed it myself.

 

[Chiropteran]

And your comment about not believing in copyright tells me pretty much all I need to know about your contributions to this thread.

Making assumptions? I said I don't consider copyright a moral right, so it's not immoral to break it.

Copyright is a law created to help corporations make money. It exists as it does because corporations with lots of money wanted ways to make EVEN more money, so they paid lobbyists lots of money to convince politicians to extend copyright to it's current absurd limits.

I understand it's purpose, and follow it, but I do not consider it moral. It's not a moral law, it's a law created by greed to further greed.