News - There will be no “full retail version” of Windows 8 on sale

[aidanjt]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. No, this is not criminal law. Yes, this is civil law. These users have knowingly used something they had no right to by the contract they were bound to. If Microsoft were so inclined (obviously highly unlikely), they could sue them in the small claims court or similar for civil liabilities.

No, not civil law, either. What part of license terms are not law did you miss? Copyright doesn't supersede property rights. That's why it's legal to resale books, DVDs, games, software, etc. irrespective of license terms to the contrary.

And what do you mean by your last sentence? It doesn't seem to make any sense here.

It means what it says. Purchased licenses are lawful property of the licensee in full, and therefore transferable.

[Tattysnuc]

Definitely a step in the right direction. There's going to be problems for serial upgraders though...

It would seem that MS are trying to reduce the price of their offering, which is great. However, this will be at the expense of serial upgraders who buy legit software. I guess they are trying 2 approaches here:

1. Lowering the cost so that more users take up their product.
2. Charging those who buy their software for each machine it's installed on.

This has the potential to rile the hardware enthusiast market... I guess only time will tell...

[matts-uk]

No, not civil law, either. What part of license terms are not law did you miss? Copyright doesn't supersede property rights.

Hmmm. That's a bit misleading.

Licence agreements are contracts, which fall within civil law (in England). Copyright is a possession, hence the term 'Intellectual Property.'

You can indeed be sued for breaching a licence agreement. However, just writing stuff in a contract does not make it lawful. For instance, any clause which seeks to limit duty of care would not be lawful (in England). Only courts can decide what may or may not be legal. The ECJ having recently clarified that a particular term in an Oracle contract was not lawful.

That's why it's legal to resale books, DVDs, games, software, etc. irrespective of license terms to the contrary.

Yes, but ownership of a DVD you are licensed to watch in private, does not make it lawful for you to show it in public.

As far as I can see, the ECJ ruling clarifies that someone who buys a digital copy owns that copy, just as surely as if it were physical media. It does not appear to mention whether you might lawfully transfer a copy, sold on the understanding it will be locked to one piece of hardware, to a different piece of hardware. You might sell the hardware with the copy installed and that would, in view of the ECJ ruling, appear to be legal. Installing onto a second device could be seen as making a further copy, which probably is not legal.

[aidanjt]

You can indeed be sued for breaching a licence agreement. However, just writing stuff in a contract does not make it lawful. For instance, any clause which seeks to limit duty of care would not be lawful (in England). Only courts can decide what may or may not be legal. The ECJ having recently clarified that a particular term in an Oracle contract was not lawful.

Exactly.

Yes, but ownership of a DVD you are licensed to watch in private, does not make it lawful for you to show it in public.

That has nothing to do with transferability.

As far as I can see, the ECJ ruling clarifies that someone who buys a digital copy owns that copy, just as surely as if it were physical media. It does not appear to mention whether you might lawfully transfer a copy, sold on the understanding it will be locked to one piece of hardware, to a different piece of hardware. You might sell the hardware with the copy installed and that would, in view of the ECJ ruling, appear to be legal. Installing onto a second device could be seen as making a further copy, which probably is not legal.

Nope, the prior Oracle ruling that licenses are transferable property, with the obvious implication that the seller no longer has a lawful right to use the software since they're no longer licensees. Oracle objected to the ruling on the basis that users were downloading the binary from their website, meaning the software is no longer a physical product and so transferability doesn't apply, which the ECJ promptly dismissed, furthermore expressing that updates and patches are also warranted to the 2nd hand licensee just as the original licensee had. For all intents and purposes, the ruling is a European 'first-sale doctrine' for the 21st century.

[BobF64]

That is something to get worrid about :/

Why is the removal of support something to be worried by?

Its not the total removal of support, its the removal of the free 90 days support that comes with retail copies.

You'll still be left with updates, the knowledge base, the Microsoft run forums and the pleasure of possibly paying £250 for them to not fix your problem on the phone.

[miniyazz]

No, not civil law, either. What part of license terms are not law did you miss? Copyright doesn't supersede property rights. That's why it's legal to resale books, DVDs, games, software, etc. irrespective of license terms to the contrary.


It means what it says. Purchased licenses are lawful property of the licensee in full, and therefore transferable.

What? Why do you keep talking about transferable licenses? That has nothing to do with what I've been saying. And please explain to me how the license agreement does not fall within civil law, since if it doesn't, I may as well tear up my agreement with Three, cancel my direct debit, and stick two fingers up at them as they will be unable to pursue me for cancelling the contract without paying their (excessive) cancellation charges.

Hmmm. That's a bit misleading.

Licence agreements are contracts, which fall within civil law (in England). Copyright is a possession, hence the term 'Intellectual Property.'

Thank you.

You can indeed be sued for breaching a licence agreement. However, just writing stuff in a contract does not make it lawful. For instance, any clause which seeks to limit duty of care would not be lawful (in England). Only courts can decide what may or may not be legal. The ECJ having recently clarified that a particular term in an Oracle contract was not lawful.

Exactly.

What exactly are you arguing? Since apparently you accept that you can be sued for breaching a license agreement, and I'm left rather lost by your seemingly irrelevant statements! - "License conditions are not law" - maybe not, but a breach of contract, i.e. breach of license conditions, can be pursued by civil court?!

[matts-uk]

That has nothing to do with transferability.

True. It has to do with the licensor having the right to decide and set the terms of use. For instance, the term that the software may only be used on one physical device, meeting a particular hardware 'footprint.'

Nope, the prior Oracle ruling that licenses are transferable property,

I disagree with your interpretation. My reading is, the case was concerned with the right to distribute a copy of the software when the license to use it is transferred. Where physical media is concerned, the rights owner's interest in the media is exhausted on first sale. The situation with regard to downloaded digital media was unclear. Oracle were claiming that buyers of used Oracle licenses had no right to acquire the media (outside a support contract with Oracle). The ECJ pointed out the license agreement was useless without the media and so disagreed. It will be interesting to see how the industry reacts to the judgement.

For all intents and purposes, the ruling is a European 'first-sale doctrine' for the 21st century.

That would appear to be where we are headed but I do not agree we are there yet. The ECJ ruling is one small step towards consumer software product purchases becoming the sales contracts they (probably) are, rather than the licensing agreements software vendors would prefer them to be. In some ways, Microsoft dumping retail would be a step along the same road.

[AGTDenton]

Thank god for the Action Pack is all I can say, although I've probably jinxed that now.

I hope they do drop the Retail, though its annoying telling people you also have to buy a £5 mouse if you want OEM.