Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?
On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:32:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:10:28 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
><orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:29:52 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Not Me" <cargodZeroOne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3EAF3E8E-8F6D-4A5E-B81F-D3D382125922@microsoft.com...
>>>> The other thing with OEM software is that it is tied to the first machine
>>>> it is installed on and you can not (legally) use it on another system.
>>>
>>>I keep reading this but I'm wondering just how far you have to go before
>>>it's "another system."
>>>
>>>I had a computer I'd built a couple of years back and installed Vista
>>>Ultimate OEM on it around the beginning of 2007.
>>>
>>>During the summer of '07, I replace the motherboard, video and DVD drive.
>>>Fired up and let Vista figure out the changes. Afterwards it said I needed
>>>to activate, which I'd expected. I called them up, told them what I'd done.
>>>They asked if I had another copy of Vista from this DVD running on another
>>>computer, and I said "no." They phrased the question a different way, and I
>>>still said "no." Next thing I know, he's giving me a new activation (or
>>>whatever it is) number.
>>>
>>>In the sense that it's the same powers supply, case, and hard drive, I
>>>suppose it's the same computer.
>>>
>>>What I wonder is, just how far could I have gone with replacing things
>>>before they'd have given me a hard time about it? Or if they would? The
>>>only thing he seemed concerned about was whether there was another instance
>>>of Vista FROM THAT DVD running on another computer anywhere.
>>>
>>>So, as a practical matter, how far can you go before they tell you you've
>>>got to get a new license?
>>>
>>> - Bill
>>
>>Microsoft has YET to clearly define just WHAT a "new machine" is IN
>>ITS OEM EULA. Yet they make licensing decisions based on their
>>INTERNAL definition of what constitutes a "new machine", rather than
>>the OEM EULA language.
>
>What is totally ludicious and gelastic is to assume by any stretch of
>wild imagination that Microsoft or any software company for licensing
>purposes gets to set a legal definition of what a "new machine" is.
>Microsoft sells software, not hardware. A "system" is what the owner
>says it is. If I at some point need to replace a power supply or
>motherboard, maybe both, that doesn't constitute a new machine. I'm
>simply repairing the old one. To think as some moronic dreebs do that
>Microsoft can/should demand you pay for a new license if this happens
>borders on insanity.
>
>Like with all things the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
>One day, soon I hope a series of law suits with slap Microsoft in the
>face with all it's illegal activities and self-centered abusive
>practices like supporting DRM that they have attempted to force down
>user's throats through flowerily but clearly illegal language in EULA
>documents. I'll smugly smile and say I told you so when that day
>finally happens. It will be sooner then some think.
>
Adam, since I am not here for the purpose of defending (or attacking)
DRM, I will try to be a little diplomatic.
This is the way I think about DRM:
1) Each artist should get paid for each time one of his works is used
in Public.
2) To insure that he is properly paid, such interested organizations
as the MPAA, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild, the Academy of
Motion Picture and Arts, the Actors' Guild, RIAA, and others exist.
3) HOW he is paid is strictly up to the Artist, in partnership with
his counsel and the Publisher or user of his work.
4) Who is to be appointed as the commercial arbiter between the Artist
and the user should be up to the People, not Hollywood agents subject
to the big Cartels' financial control.
5) For this reason, I suggest that a Federal Commission for the
Performing Arts, Graphic and Digital Arts, and Folk Art be
established, which will investigate what a fair price for the sale of
a CD or DVD should be, and what the royalty for public display or
performance of the work of an Artist should be.
6) To do their jobs effectively, the members of this Commission will
need the cooperation of those interested organizations mentioned
above, as well as the trust and cooperation of the Artists, their
representives, sponsors/patrons, and admiring audience, the People.
7) Only the People, through referendum, or the Government, by enacting
laws compelling its creation, can cause such a Commission to be
formed.
8)And only a Government can compel such a Commission's decisions to be
respected and obeyed.
All of this leads me to ask myself "HOW are such a Commission's edicts
to be put into practice?" What is to guarantee that someone won't buy
a single copy of a movie, for instance, and sell copies of it all over
the Web to every "Tom, Dick, Harry, and Susan" WITHOUT paying the
Author the royalty he certainly deserves?
WE all know the answer to that one, Adam: SOME form of DRM is needed
in this age of cheap and powerful computers, with small, cheap, and
powerful storage devices -- so small, as much data may be put on a
single 2GB Flash drive the size of half-a-stick of chewing gum, as
formerly fit on three 720MB CDRs.
Of all this I am sure you are aware.
And I hope my faith is not misplaced in your sense of fair-play and
decency when I insist that "some form" of DRM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
in a "Laize Faire" economy... maybe in a world in which money played
no part in daily life, we could put all our work where anyone could
use it if he needed it, and if he never replaced it, someone else
would replace it with something better. Such are the dreams of poets
and anarchists.
The Dutch say it best: "Taanstafl", being roughly translated,
"There's no such thing as a free lunch."
But I would rather see this field of Digital Entertainment regulated
by a Government commission, rather than the Industry itself. At least
the prices would stay low.
Allowing the Industry to regulate itself would be tantamount to NO
control over the greed of the Industry, and loss to the consumer.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
