If there was an HN commenter with a username taken from a DOS batch file who complains about game console surveillance, then would it be safe to conclude this might be a non-enterprise Windows user.
A reply about tangible products that people can choose to purchase or choose not to purchase is not a response to the comment I am making. These are examples of conscious choices, coupled with payment.
With few exceptions, non-enterprise Windows users are not consciously choosing to purchase a Windows license. They are choosing to purchase a computer. The decision to purchase a Windows license was made by the OEM. If we ask these computer purchasers what they bought, they are likely to describe a tangible product, e.g., "I bought a computer", not a license to use an operating system.
If something is wrong with the computer, then the purchaser can generally contact the seller/manufacturer for redress. But when the problem is with Windows, consumers generally do not contact Microsoft. Instead they complain into the ether.
Good luck enforcing warranties or products liability laws against Microsoft with respect to a free copy of non-enterprise Windows that was pre-installed on a computer. Windows can be broken six ways to Sunday, it can be a defective "product", and Microsoft can take its time fixing the problems, or even just leave them as is.
Yes, I am prepared to argue that you have no direct business relationship with Microsoft when you purchase a PC. In fact, if you read your license agreement you will see that -- the first line in fact reads: "These license terms are an agreement between you and the computer manufacturer that distributes the software with the computer". According to the license the manufacturer accepts all responsibility for defects in Windows (including updates) for the warranty period.
If you choose to install a version of Windows purchased directly from Microsoft, that's under completely different terms.
“I never asked for a Windows license when buying PC, and yet I had no choice.”
I have owned countless computers since the mid 80’s, and I have never been forced to purchase a windows license or used windows on a computer I bought for myself.
I think it's more that the situation where a person could have a license compliant installation of Windows without having purchased [for some definition of "purchase"] a copy of Windows is non-obvious.
>If you're not willing to honor the license, what possible point would there be to paying for the software in the first place?
This practice is actually fairly common. For example, almost all the technical people I know have bought OEM licenses rather than retail licenses for previous versions of Windows when they're building new systems. According to Microsoft, an OEM license is only valid if you sell the new system to someone else, not use it yourself[1].
They consented to the terms when installing, and the license that says they had to accept the terms at purchase, so them not knowing is entirely on them.
I'm not pro-Microsoft, but it's really on the consumers, here, if they didn't know what they got themselves into.
Actually that is a different issue. Windows doesn't restrict the user in installing softwares that they want to. Hell, it even allows user to keep using their product and subsequent MS softwares with sufficient independence even after realizing that the OS is pirated. What you are pointing out is the behaviour of OEMs which is rightly called out as obnoxious and degrading.
Fair. This is a legitimate concern. I guess I'm a fairly uninformed consumer, as I've never actually sought a refund for a Windows license (nor known this was a possibility).
>I didn't even mention the words "licensing" and "banning."
Even if you don't mention them explicitly, you still have to acknowledge the difference because one of your examples was "software object".
When consumers pay money for software, it almost always licensed and not bought. If you buy MS Windows 10 from Amazon.com, you purchased a license. If you truly want to "buy" Windows 10 in the same sense as your other non-software examples, you'd have to convince Microsoft to sell you the "ownership of the codebase" or have enough billions to acquire the entire Microsoft corporation to "own" Windows 10.
>People who get the full retail version tend to do so by buying a new computer
nope, new computers come with OEM licenses, which have the same single-physical-machine restriction.
I can't think of a single situation where a full retail license of Windows is the actual license that somebody would need. It's for somebody who isn't building their own computer, isn't buying a new computer, and isn't upgrading an old windows computer. Mac Boot Camp users, maybe? I think the primary point of the $199 SKU is to tell people how much they're saving by purchasing a different version. they might as well price it at $999.
Ok, but the question is, would a legally-knowledgeable, unbiased person say I’ve done something legally “wrong” if I use Windows without entering a license key?
But in case of OEM Windows licence it is black and white, no?
What would be peoples motivation to buy it for existing computer?
* "It's sorta legal, it's at least some kind of a licence, right?" -- they're misinformed / tricked /fools
* "I want to pay something, but retail costs too much" -- if you pay without getting anything useful in return, you're donating. Why not donate to charity?
* "I want to get Windows Updates" -- cracked copies used to get updates, and they're often bundled with updates already applied
My point is, I don't understand buying half-valid licence. Licence is either valid or you have no licence.
> (2) OEM Windows disks that Microsoft sells for $25. These come with a license (unlike the defendant's disks) but do come with a physical disk.
I'm confused, what exactly are these, where can a private individual buy one? A Windows license key with (no media) is priced around $120, while an OEM license with no support is in the $50-$90 area, depending on the business relationship with Microsoft. If individuals were able to legally get a Windows license by "restoring" it for $25, it would be a riot, nobody would pay the retail price.
But if that $25 option is not available to consumers, then it makes the comparison to the free disks even more tenuous, and the fair use issue stronger, especially in light of the electronic waste issue. There is a fundamental social value that is being protected.
That doesn't work in this situation. What percentage of windows users "bought the product"? Someone else bought it and put it on the computer without any user input. It's like buying a house and finding out that it has a coin-operated lock on the front door when you try to move in.
> Probably the damages for MS come from refurbishers "assisting" their customers to install OS from repair CDs using serials from stickers left from previous PC owners -- clearly not legal.
Is this true? By this logic every PC bought on craigslist would need a new Windows license. I think the license follows the computer not the user, thus you can't transfer a license between machines but it is valid for the original machine it was purchased for. Maybe not relicensing Windows after purchasing a used machine is illegal-- I don't know, but virtually no one does this and likely only pay Microsoft if they need to upgrade from a previous version not covered by the original license.
A reply about tangible products that people can choose to purchase or choose not to purchase is not a response to the comment I am making. These are examples of conscious choices, coupled with payment.
With few exceptions, non-enterprise Windows users are not consciously choosing to purchase a Windows license. They are choosing to purchase a computer. The decision to purchase a Windows license was made by the OEM. If we ask these computer purchasers what they bought, they are likely to describe a tangible product, e.g., "I bought a computer", not a license to use an operating system.
If something is wrong with the computer, then the purchaser can generally contact the seller/manufacturer for redress. But when the problem is with Windows, consumers generally do not contact Microsoft. Instead they complain into the ether.
Good luck enforcing warranties or products liability laws against Microsoft with respect to a free copy of non-enterprise Windows that was pre-installed on a computer. Windows can be broken six ways to Sunday, it can be a defective "product", and Microsoft can take its time fixing the problems, or even just leave them as is.
reply