"Microsoft Word non-commercial use"

Well actually, if you follow the EULA, you own nothing.

No, the EULA says I don't own the software, but I still own the physical disc it came packaged in.

You can give the disc to someone but they aren't allowed to use the software on it. If they do, you could be theoretically be liable for something, but I'm not sure what that would be exactly.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

True, but again, unless they specifically told me that's what they were gonna use it for, all the blame would be on them, not me, wouldn't it?

Knowingly selling a product to someone intending to violate a legal contract is still a breach of the law on your own part though.

If you could prove or provide reasonable evidence that you acted entirely in good faith, assuming you believed your friend would obey the law, then you'd be in the clear but deception on your friend's part might be tough to prove.

edited 1st Aug '11 10:12:15 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

It used to be that EULAs gave instructions on how to transfer the license properly; it usually involved transferring all copies and documentation, and destroying the copies you had left. These days, they don't like talking about that because licenses that are taken to be non-transferable mean more money for them.

Oddly enough, this doesn't apply to Windows licenses, since they usually follow the machine, not the purchaser.

edited 1st Aug '11 10:16:05 AM by lee4hmz

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

What if I just went into, say, a mall food court and left the disc sitting on a table with no idea who would pick it up or what they'd do with it?

Raven: in that case, it's unlikely anyone would even care. You might be liable, technically, but unless you were doing something egregious like selling cracked copies, it's not worth the lawyers' time and the court costs to bother.

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

Intent is a very tricky thing to prove in these cases, but you're indulging in some rampant hypotheticals. If you made a black market operation out of "accidentally" leaving licensed software discs on tables, someone might decide to sniff you out and prosecute.

Also, any software that requires online activation (read: most newer Microsoft products and many games) usually can't be transferred once the initial license key is used because it validates against a server that keeps track of the keys. So copying the physical media is pointless, unless you also break the copy-protection, which puts you in violation of all sorts of laws.

edited 1st Aug '11 12:51:54 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Eh, basically I'm in a situation where I'm going to have to get rid of Microsoft Home & Student on my computer just a month or two after getting it, and I'd rather not just throw it in the trash, is all.

Well, if it isn't an activation-required version, you can probably transfer it legally as long as you completely uninstall it first. Sort of. It is highly unlikely that MS will come breaking down your door.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Don't worry, just do it like everyone else, ignore all these draconian contracts, and do whatever you want with the software you purchased. Because quite frankly, if every copyright/patent/EULA or whatever license you can come up with were to be enforced, just about everyone I know would be bankrupt.

Somebody's never heard of ghosting programs...

Regardless if Microsoft wants to claim User Adgreements are legal contacts it's has to make a case in a court of law.

The burden of proof is on them not the consumer.

edited 2nd Aug '11 4:43:15 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I probably should have said "not allowed to" instead of "can't" there, but I wasn't expecting to be semantically nitpicked. Of course you can (as in, are physically capable of) ghost the software onto multiple computers. You still are required to have a licensing arrangement that permits you to do that. Companies make much more tempting and lucrative targets for piracy claims than individual consumers, and MS is only too happy to go after a business engaging in such practices.

Maybe so, but there's this nice document called an EULA that Microsoft can prove that it showed to you before you were allowed to use the software. Considering that they regularly get enforced in court, the burden of proof is not very high.

These arguments keep coming up and it's utterly childish. An EULA is a contract, a legal agreement. You may not like it, but that doesn't alter the basic facts. EULA's can and are upheld in court on a regular basis, and they fit well within established contract law. The only reasons that an individual consumer is likely to get away with piracy on a small scale are that (a) it's too expensive and time-consuming for companies to prosecute, and (b) it's bad customer relations to sue half of your customers.

I really wish people would stop trying to justify their actions with abstract rationalizations and just admit that yes, they are committing piracy and they don't care about the consequences.

edited 2nd Aug '11 6:14:23 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

This isn't about piracy..

Saying you retain intellectual property on software is not controversial. Saying you retain ownership of a individual copy of legally purchased software and have to right to decide how the consumer can use after the point of sale is taking a liberty.

edited 2nd Aug '11 6:42:18 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Well, that's what the license says. If they say you can't use it for commercial purposes and you have to buy a more expensive version if you want to publish, that's their business. You can, of course, tell them to shove it, as it's rather extraordinarily difficult to prove that any particular Word document came from a Home/Student license rather than a commercial one. However, you are, in fact, violating the license by doing so. This is not arguable.

(Aside: I suppose Word could put the info in a hidden document profile field but stripping it out would be child's play.)

The point about piracy was related to the discussion earlier in the thread about giving your CDs to someone else. My argument remains the same if you replace "piracy" with any other violation of the EULA. It's not a question of whether a software company can do these things — they have done them and are doing them.

edited 2nd Aug '11 6:58:20 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yet another reason to oppose intellectual property.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

To the best of my knowledge, some EULA's have been struck down as unenforceable in the courts, but all of them were the ones that contained a clause that ''by opening the package you agreed to the terms". The grounds were that if you had to open the package to get to the EULA, you could not legally be held to have agreed to it, since you were being effectively made to agree to it in order to even read it.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

It might break the terms and conditions. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's legally my copy of the software. By selling it to me it's becomes my property to use as I wish.

It might sound childish to you, but it's part of the fundamental concept of property and free trade. You can't sell a book and complain when it gets used as toilet paper, you can't sell a car and demand that people have to car pool. It's just not on

edited 2nd Aug '11 7:07:40 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Nope, it is not. Seriously. You own the physical media — the disc, box, manuals, and the like. You do not own what's on or in them. This is established law, and you are wrong on this point.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

no I don't own the copyright, but I do have the ownership of that particular copy. There is a difference.

edited 2nd Aug '11 7:15:04 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

You own a license to use that copy according to the terms of said contract. Case law supports this. You also have certain Fair Use and resale rights, depending on the jurisdiction. However, if the license prohibits transferring it to someone else, then anyone you sell/give the media to must obtain a new license in order to legally use it.

Example: I can give my World Of Warcraft discs to someone else. They can install from my copy or anyone's copy according to the EULA. However, the license to play the game attaches to me forever and cannot be transferred, sold, gifted, or anything else.

edited 2nd Aug '11 7:17:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

joey, I realize that the sheer stupidity of the modern copyright system can be hard to comprehend, but yes, that is how it is.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

Perhaps an explanation on the reasoning is in order. The "non-commercial" thing means "you agree to use this for your personal use." If you use it to make money (i.e. write a book and then publish it, using this software) you have violated the terms of the agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone who's better at case law, but that's the idea behind this. Now, whether or not that's a valid idea is up for debate, of course, but that's their thinking when they set it up.

Thus is why the book analogy is bad. I sell you the book for your personal use. If you want to use it as toilet paper, fine, but if you somehow use the book in a manner that makes you money, you have violated the agreement made when you bought the book. I can't really think of a way that would work, but the analogy isn't very good in the first place, so...

edited 2nd Aug '11 7:27:26 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.