Windows Feedback Program - Free Vista/Office 2007 - UPDATE!!!

jaegertech said:
MS (and most software companies) exploit a loophole though. They aren't selling you a copy of the work, they are selling you a license to use the work. They can legally place ANY limitation they want on the license, including the no resale clause.

The morality or longevity of this loophole is irrelevant; this is the way things stand today. I personally believe that the loophole will be eliminated eventually, but software companies don't pursue litigation of offenders often enough for there to have been a precedent setting case yet, AFAIK.
Click to expand...

Many courts consider the sale of any software as a sale of goods since there is media accompanied with the license. There was even one case where Microsoft sued someone for selling a NFR copy of software bundled with their computer and essentially lost (okay they dropped it). Not only did they "lose" their suit, there was a countersuit against MS which the guy wouldn't drop until MS publicly apologized and repaid all legal costs. There was also an undisclosed settlement.

http://clevescene.com/2005-03-30/news/kill-bill/
 
jaegertech said:
MS (and most software companies) exploit a loophole though. They aren't selling you a copy of the work, they are selling you a license to use the work. They can legally place ANY limitation they want on the license, including the no resale clause.
Click to expand...

This is the main difference that really drives the software industry (and some do have a hard time understanding)..


they actually aren't selling you the information on the disk, they are selling you a license to "use" what is on the disk.. Microsoft probably even still owns the disk (knowing their legal department) and it is just a license to use the disk for intended purposes (Installation etc..)

the same way you don't actually own a movie when you buy a DVD, but that you own a license to watch the movie (for personal use).

From the vista license

microsoft license said:
The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some
rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights...
Click to expand...

And further down


microsfot license said:
NOT FOR RESALE SOFTWARE. You may not sell software marked as “NFR” or “Not for Resale.”
Click to expand...

by those definitions i'd say that Microsoft does indeed own the actual DVD and they are just giving you/me a limited use license on it.

here is a good read at wiki First Sale Doctrine

what really is confusing is that fact that all i've read doesn't really stipulate whether the software in these court cases actually deal with Software that is specifically Labeled (Not for Sale).. Kindof like those mini candy bars that state "Not for individual sale".
 
H-street said:
This is the main difference that really drives the software industry (and some do have a hard time understanding)..


they actually aren't selling you the information on the disk, they are selling you a license to "use" what is on the disk.. Microsoft probably even still owns the disk (knowing their legal department) and it is just a license to use the disk for intended purposes (Installation etc..)

the same way you don't actually own a movie when you buy a DVD, but that you own a license to watch the movie (for personal use).

From the vista license



And further down




by those definitions i'd say that Microsoft does indeed own the actual DVD and they are just giving you/me a limited use license on it.
Click to expand...


The thing is those are in a license agreement that has yet to be agreed to. Until you install the software and agree to the EULA, then you essentially still have a good and not a license.

Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (a box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
Click to expand...
 
Ai yah, you guys are giving me a headache lol. So many good points on both sides ~__~
 
Me thinks that ryan_975 has researched these loopholes and rulings WAY too deep for a mere promotional Vista CD.

Seems much more likely that mr.ryan is making a gracious living off this fine line of uncertainty.

:p
 
wjogert said:
Me thinks that ryan_975 has researched these loopholes and rulings WAY too deep for a mere promotional Vista CD.

Seems much more likely that mr.ryan is making a gracious living off this fine line of uncertainty.

:p
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's just this topic has come up numerous times here and other places.
 
ryan_975 said:
Not at all. It's just this topic has come up numerous times here and other places.
Click to expand...

In that case, please accept my apology. :)

BTW, just to update... EBay has started to remove many of the auctions for these discs.
 
RangerXML said:
Santa Barbara, CA

Got my copies, two licenses w00t!
Click to expand...

Just got mine too. Do you think its necessary to contact them, telling them that I received my gift today? Seeing as I had emailed them over the weekend telling them that I had not gotten my gift by the second.
 
Got my Vista Ultimate. :D

Now the question is, is it worth upgrading to Vista right now? I still have 7900GTX vid card so no DX10. And also, will it be an advantage to install the 64 bit version on my system? Specs are below.
 
wjogert said:
Know what burns me most? It's not the EULA violations. It's the total disrespect.

There were SO many [H]'ers that got cutoff from this deal early, due to available stock... and yet y'all have the nerve to flaunt the fact that you only got your copies to "make a quick buck"? Nice. :mad:
Click to expand...

YYYYYEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS thank you. thank you thank you thank you. this is exactly what buns me about people making a dollar off these discs. i dont care what anyone says- these were gifts. sure, you had to let them run privacy invasion software for 3 months- but they never said the computer had to be used heavily, or even had to be the 'main pc' you use. i threw that program on my laptop. i did some regular intervals of porn and im sure that was 90% of their feedback anyway.

i mean i need the money more then anyone right now, but im not selling these discs. i did, however, give one to someone in need- now that i feel good about. it turned a pirated XP machine into a legal vista rig. i have a feeling this giveaway did that to thousands of machines out there.....
 
jhego said:
Got my Vista Ultimate. :D

Now the question is, is it worth upgrading to Vista right now? I still have 7900GTX vid card so no DX10. And also, will it be an advantage to install the 64 bit version on my system? Specs are below.
Click to expand...

there isnt much reason to go 64bit right now.... for a lot of reasons. i think honestly 64 bit is still 5 years from mainstream. its close though!, its definitely a viable option now.

and i have the same video card. it loves vista and vista loves it. i cant stand xp anymore.... its so win95 like! :)
 
brysig228 said:
i think that sign "NOT FOR RESALE" is for retailer not for individual john doe who's trying to sell it on e-bay. but hey i might be wrong.. and i'm keeping mine, actually i already installed it.:D
Click to expand...

It would be perfectly legal for a retailer to order these in bulk. MS would certainly bully them, though. To those saying it bugs them that people would sell it, welcome to the free market. You have no right to tell me what I can resell, and neither does Microsoft. Our market prospers (most of the time, anyway) because it is free. Sometimes companies (generally game companies) will band together and try to ban selling used copies of something because it doesn't bring them profit. It was tried in Japan. It failed, as it should. Should the first sale doctrine be revoked, what will you guys do when new car contracts forbid resale?

I didn't get these to resell them, but if I feel like it, neither Microsoft nor a bunch of 16 year old whiners on the internet that don't understand the concept of first sale are going to deny me the privilege of the free market.

Also lol at the guy who feels good for turning away from the pirate course just because he was able to get something for free. And this same guy is trying to make the rest of us look bad? Bravo, man! You've gone from MS not making money off of you to... not making money off of you!
 
krupted said:
there isnt much reason to go 64bit right now.... for a lot of reasons. i think honestly 64 bit is still 5 years from mainstream. its close though!, its definitely a viable option now.

and i have the same video card. it loves vista and vista loves it. i cant stand xp anymore.... its so win95 like! :)
Click to expand...

sweetness, i'm installing vista as we speak:D
 
mrmetal_53 said:
Just got mine too. Do you think its necessary to contact them, telling them that I received my gift today? Seeing as I had emailed them over the weekend telling them that I had not gotten my gift by the second.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should.
 
Met-AL said:
Orly?
Click to expand...

Yes and here is a link to support that supposition:

Link is to a online retailer that is selling the exact same DVD received by those whom participated in the WFP. What makes this even more interesting is that this link is a click-through ad link found on eBay when searching for these DVD's.


 
got mine yesterday.

FS/T here i come!

not really, j/k.. i think i might surprise the wife with it. hmm.. she probably won't like it though
 
shyboi said:
Yes and here is a link to support that supposition:

Link is to a online retailer that is selling the exact same DVD received by those whom participated in the WFP. What makes this even more interesting is that this link is a click-through ad link found on eBay when searching for these DVD's.


Click to expand...

Anyone else notice that the disc in this link LOOKS the same, EXCEPT that it does not have "Not for Resale"? Me thinks, that's a big difference.
 
If anyone would like to part with only their 64bit version, please let me know!
 
wjogert said:
Anyone else notice that the disc in this link LOOKS the same, EXCEPT that it does not have "Not for Resale"? Me thinks, that's a big difference.
Click to expand...

The product being sold could be a NFR DVD with that simply covered up on the DVD label. The point i am attempting to make is that this DVD is being sold from an online retailer as "promotional" so if one uses the verbage "Probational" in their attempt to sell the DVD are they then exempt from the NFR clause?





 
OK, so let me understand this...

You are saying that you should have the right to sell the discs for profit, even though Microsoft clearly made you agree that you would not. And to support this argument, you point to a retailer who is selling the supposed identical disc, the photo of which has been digitally altered to remove the statement "Not for Resale".

If they indeed removed the NFR statement, wouldn't that only further support that you are in fact NOT legally allowed to redistribute this software for profit? I mean, why go through the effort if legally unnecessary?

:p
 
wjogert said:
OK, so let me understand this...

You are saying that you should have the right to sell the discs for profit, even though Microsoft clearly made you agree that you would not. And to support this argument, you point to a retailer who is selling the supposed identical disc, the photo of which has been digitally altered to remove the statement "Not for Resale".

If they indeed removed the NFR statement, wouldn't that only further support that you are in fact NOT legally allowed to redistribute this software for profit? I mean, why go through the effort if legally unnecessary?

:p
Click to expand...

At what point did we agree to this? The only agreement I can find on the WFP site is about the use of the WFP software.
 
The agreement was part of the registration process for WFP. I read the entire agreement before accepting the contract, as I was very leery of the process.

I don't remember the exact wording, but I do remember a clause stating that as a participant I was entitled to my choice of a free gift, to which lots of legal conditions were applied... including for personal use only, and not to be re-sold, and must be used in accordance with standard EULA agreements, blah-blah, etc.

Unfortunately, when they pulled the gift promotion, they removed the entire page, including the legal contract that we agreed to.

I actually printed out the entire contract, but can't seem to find it. If I do, I'll post the actual phrasing.
 
wjogert said:
OK, so let me understand this...

You are saying that you should have the right to sell the discs for profit, even though Microsoft clearly made you agree that you would not. And to support this argument, you point to a retailer who is selling the supposed identical disc, the photo of which has been digitally altered to remove the statement "Not for Resale".

If they indeed removed the NFR statement, wouldn't that only further support that you are in fact NOT legally allowed to redistribute this software for profit? I mean, why go through the effort if legally unnecessary?

:p
Click to expand...


Actually, it seems I misunderstood your meaning. I only intended to point out that those discs on eBay were in fact from the WFP promotion, with their images altered in an attempt to avoid attention; not that I advocate selling them.

Why would anyone sell these, anyway? You'll get $200, tops, and when you need an OS down the road you'll end up shelling out $400 for the same thing. :confused:
 
Rabid Badger said:
Actually, it seems I misunderstood your meaning. I only intended to point out that those discs on eBay were in fact from the WFP promotion, with their images altered in an attempt to avoid attention; not that I advocate selling them.

Why would anyone sell these, anyway? You'll get $200, tops, and when you need an OS down the road you'll end up shelling out $400 for the same thing. :confused:
Click to expand...

ok, lets do the math here. WFP sent you a 32-bit and a 64-bit disc for ultimate. each disc has it's own key. say you signed up using two computers, that's 4 licenses you can sell on ebay, at a top of $200. that's $800 PROFIT. plus, if you *need* an OS later, ubuntu is also free, so you still have the $800 profit! that's why you would want to sell these

(this post does not condone selling these discs on eBay, it just justifies selling them on ebay :D)
 
ryan_975 said:
At what point did we agree to this? The only agreement I can find on the WFP site is about the use of the WFP software.
Click to expand...

Microsoft gave you a license to use the software. They didn't give you the software itself. This means that they can revoke that license if you violate the terms of use, which includes not reselling it.
 
Maximus825 said:
Microsoft gave you a license to use the software. They didn't give you the software itself. This means that they can revoke that license if you violate the terms of use, which includes not reselling it.
Click to expand...

Again show me the license that says that. I truly want to see it. The EULA on the disc is a standard EULA, the LA on the WFP sites makes no mention of the free software gift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top