cageyjames

Quote:

Originally posted by humba Did you read my comment above about ROM updates? Each ROM contains a new OS, and you don't have to get a license for those upgrades, do you? It may well be that the upgrade CD comes with a new license certificate, but until the CD has arrived, how can you know? Or how can you know that Dell hasn't already paid Microsoft for the WM2k3 license I ordered? All am saying is, that things aren't just black and white. Let's try this: I was head of IT in a small company, and we ordered roughly 30 Dell PCs. Since Dell offered us WinXP and Office XP OEM cheaper than MS volume licensing, we got OEM licenses. I ended up having a list of serials for operating system, office and publisher (for some reason that was included in Office Pro but required another code). I was creating 3 system images, one for the desktops, and two for the notebooks (some people wanted their software in a different language). I assigned each serial triplet to a machine, put the image on the machine, then performed the rest of the setup (basically entering the serials, activate Windows, and personalize the computer (login, mail)). Somewhere along the road I accidentally used the same line (serials) for two machines. Now I still had the licenses, but if you want to go strictly by the book (and you're very insisting about that), one installation is improper. Yet, I doubt that we'd have any problems during an audit - we had a valid license for each machine.. but my point is.. it doesn't have to be strictly by the book to be allowable. Now imagine I had used volume licensing. A couple of months after buying the first batch of computers, I had to order some more notebooks and another desktop machine. With volume licensing I'd have used the same CD and code to install the software on those machines and I'd have to ask Microsoft for more licenses. Imagine that I signed the necessary papers and paid the required fees, yet the paper from Microsoft stating that I now had 30+X licenses of WinXP and Office instead of 30, had not arrived yet, and the company needed the machines. Would I keep back the machines, telling my boss I hadn't gotten the licenses yet? He'd be laughing at me and look for somebody else to get him those machines the company needed (and paid for.. for both hard and software). So, you'd release those machines, even though you don't have the license papers yet. According to you, I've just become a pirate. But I'm convinced that if another audit were to happen before the license papers get to me, and I could show them the papers I filled out and that the money had been transferred, they'd be able to call up Microsoft central, and find out that the licenses had been bought and that the paper just hadn't made it yet. It's once again a case where not everything is by the books, but they wouldn't want to harass a customer who buys licenses for all machines.

If the BSA came and audited you, you'd be in violation. As an IT person, it would be your responsibility to tell your boss that you don't have the license yet. I deal with that every day and they have yet to fire me because I won't install a program that I don't have a license for. Because your boss doesn't understand how software licenses work, doesn't mean that its OK to install the software. The company I got my first job at years ago was audited by Adobe and we were found to have software installed where we didn't have licenses. It wasn't my job at the time, but I did see how the company was fined $300,000 for the violation. Remember, you are only a phone call away from a disgruntled worked from getting audited.

I know for a fact that the CD comes with a seal you break for the license.

Quote:

Sometimes I wonder if you aren't getting your Dell loyalty take things too far. snathanb made a nice list of Dell screwups in that affair. As a moderator and somebody who's been around here a lot longer then myself, you are well aware how dell handled the affair. They denied there was a problem for weeks. You've seen all the problem reports. Can you honestly tell anybody that Dell didn't deny they had a problem and only admitted it once the public pressure started rising? And can you tell us with a straight face that the installer worked flawlessly for everybody? I've seen many frustrated A04 owners posting here that the upgrade didn't work for them.. most of those aborted upgrades got stuck at 1/13. I don't think I'm just dreaming that. Once the upgrade gets reposted, I'd be surprised of all the people having issues before would still have the same problems when trying to apply the upgrade.

Wait one second. Before you start assuming you even begin to know my opinion about Dell and how they handled this, consider this. A02 and A03 updates had tons of people who had trouble with the ROM update. Did Dell ever pull the update? No.

Quote:

Piracy is a convenient excuse for them to fix the problems with the updater. Don't let brand loyalty blind you from seeing the problems people are having.

Again, you are assuming something that isn't true. Until Dell says that they are going to change the updater, I can only say what Dell has told me.

1. They pulled the updater because of people hacking.

2. There are no plans to change the updater.

Any assumption on your part is misguided. We have all these rumors about why the patch was pulled and from what my sources have told me there will be no changes to the patch. If I hear different, I will let you know, but according to my source, the rate of people having trouble is about the same as those with A02 and A03. When I from Dell that they are going to change the package, I'll let you know.

Quote:

In fact, I believe that more people who had no business installing the upgrade (and those that had "limited business", the ones we're discussing here) were successful than those whom the patch was made for. And on a maybe less reliable note, Kensupen posted that Dell was aware that the updater was faulty and didn't work properly on all machines.

As I've said, my sources tell me that there are no issues beyond the usual problems. I trust one of them and he/she has never lead me wrong. He was totally honest about the poor performance of the WM 2003 installs and I'm trusting him/her here.

batuckan

humba wrote:

@batuckan: German courts have ruled that OEM software may be sold without a PC. Thus what you said doesn't apply everywhere.

----------------------------

we aren't in Germany. just as their laws don't necessarily apply to us, they may consider our laws not applying to them.

Many countries may choose to abide or discard the laws re: software licensing. Just cuz someone /country disagrees does not make it right, or legal.

my point again was to inform. People had criticized my warnings, claiming I don't know what I am saying. I just had to correct them.

and finally amazing you would pick Germany out of a hat. Amazing that a country so proficent in an Alternate OS, <linux, Suse.xx> would not side with Microsoft. Check any of the IP's of any linux P2P software, tell me how many of them are american?

and finally, for you flame baiters out there, I like "choices" this country is built on them. I support Netware/MS at work, at home I run MS and Linux. Netware can be "obtrusive" I can see why many people dislike/ distrust MS. I just don't know why they chose to stay...

mike

__________________
mike

Dell Axim X5 Xscale 400
Windows Mobile 2003 <flashed>
ambicom gps
linksys wcf12 <working!>
lexar 1GB CF
Sandisk 256 SD card
NiteIZE nylon pda case
Sony Memory stick hard aluminum case

batuckan

CageyJ!

Keep the faith...<big grin> this too shall pass.

batuckan/Mike

__________________
mike

Dell Axim X5 Xscale 400
Windows Mobile 2003 <flashed>
ambicom gps
linksys wcf12 <working!>
lexar 1GB CF
Sandisk 256 SD card
NiteIZE nylon pda case
Sony Memory stick hard aluminum case

ricoesco

I'm surprised this has become such a huge issue on these boards. The fact is that even if the patch was never made available on the public ftp site, Windows Mobile 2003 will be pirated by many within a few days of its official release until the next version is released. Pirates and software developers know this.

There is no legal justification for piracy. However, it seems that people are putting incredible amounts of energy into voicing their disapproval of those who cracked Dell's software.

Businesses that produce quality products can survive piracy. Imagine how many copies of MS and Adobe software has been pirated in the past 10yrs, yet these companies remain dominant. Piracy is a concern for many developers but staying competitive in the marketplace is their focus. This is what drives the development of software, despite the risk of piracy.

There are legal violations made by individuals in all classes of society. Funny how middle to upper class people often get away with worse violations than the poor, but I digress. What I'm saying is laws are great, but are regulary broken by your average citizen, government officials such as U.S. presidents, and corporations.

Violating a known law is a moral issue often involving an assessment of risk v. benefit. Laws are designed to inhibit the nature of individuals ---the fact that people are often self-interested.

Laws are effective not only because they are enforced, but also because the majority of people abide by them. So in my opinion, denouncing (with intensity) the actions of a relatively small group of people who download a patch available for a few hours is a waste of time, given the fact that far more copies will be distributed "underground" even when officially released.

ajabbari

I think I'll take a break from commenting on any of the recent posts and will instead take this opportunity to say that apparently someone managed to get the WM2003 upgrade to go past the 1/13 point by taking both batteries out for ten minutes and then running the upgrade after putting them back in.

It would be nice if more people could independently confirm that this is indeed a solution for the 1/13 hang.

Astounded EEG

Quote:

Originally posted by ricoesco I'm surprised this has become such a huge issue on these boards. The fact is that even if the patch was never made available on the public ftp site, Windows Mobile 2003 will be pirated by many within a few days of its official release until the next version is released. Pirates and software developers know this. There is no legal justification for piracy. However, it seems that people are putting incredible amounts of energy into voicing their disapproval of those who cracked Dell's software. in my opinion, denouncing (with intensity) the actions of a relatively small group of people who download a patch available for a few hours is a waste of time, given the fact that far more copies will be distributed "underground" even when officially released.

There are a few reasons this debate won't go away:
- however you look at it, the issue is firmly entrenched in a "gray area;" there is plenty of ammo for both sides--note all the analogies--and plenty of passion because everyone was irritated with Dell to begin with. This is exacerbated by the mystifying behavior of the Great Big Dell in the Sky--people are disputing the facts (e.g., what dell did, why dell did it) in addition to everything else.
- Many people have a lot "invested" in this thread.
- As the ideas generated in the thread diversify (morality, cars, licenses, computers, OSs, etc.), more people decide to join in.
- Someone brought up morality.
- People are defending their actions and their lifestyles.

I don't think that the "anti-pirating" side is hating on the "pirating side," it's just that neither side will give up.


ParaAxim: re: Indiana:
not a surprise.

drsatan

I have a question for anybody who knows...
Arn't you only under an EULA if you click the "OK" button to agree to it? And arn't licencing terms in the EULA? So, if you hack the EULA BEFORE you agree to anything, or never click the "I Agree" button, have you actually committed piracy?

Astounded EEG

Quote:

Originally posted by ajabbari I think I'll take a break from commenting on any of the recent posts and will instead take this opportunity to say that apparently someone managed to get the WM2003 upgrade to go past the 1/13 point by taking both batteries out for ten minutes and then running the upgrade after putting them back in.

lol

more than one person, it seems.

MentalV

I have an even better question...

Who gives a Rat's a$$?

Really people WILL do what they want no mater what others say... so what is there to discuss?

cageyjames

Quote:

Originally posted by drsatan I have a question for anybody who knows... Arn't you only under an EULA if you click the "OK" button to agree to it? And arn't licencing terms in the EULA? So, if you hack the EULA BEFORE you agree to anything, or never click the "I Agree" button, have you actually committed piracy?

Well since you are hacking the program anyway, why would it matter? Just because you don't agree to a EULA doesn't mean it don't exist.

humba

Quote:

If the BSA came and audited you, you'd be in violation. As an IT person, it would be your responsibility to tell your boss that you don't have the license yet. I deal with that every day and they have yet to fire me because I won't install a program that I don't have a license for. Because your boss doesn't understand how software licenses work, doesn't mean that its OK to install the software. The company I got my first job at years ago was audited by Adobe and we were found to have software installed where we didn't have licenses.

Well.. obviously I did tell my boss whenever he wanted me to do something that I didn't think was okay, but bosses can fire you for not doing what they want, too, but that's all hypothetical really, because the volume contract thing was just an example.. we had oem licenses and thus one license per machine and I eventually managed to correct the serial number error when the devices came back to me. However, if an auditor would accuse my company of using illegitimate software in the case described (having bought extra licenses and not having received the license sheet yet.. imagine it to be stuck at the post office or something), I'm pretty sure that the auditor would take that into account. I cannot imagine that everybody is so stuck up and cite you for an imaginary violation (the license have been bought.. if you don't have the papers at your office.. are they going to sue right away? I very much doubt that. With volume licensing they can ask central how many licenses you have in case you have misplaced the paperwork). I've never undergone an audit (and never will because IT was never my primary profession), but I don't think it'll come to the point where I need a gigantic corkscrew to remove the cork in an auditor's butt, or have to make an appeal or countersue because the auditor cited for violations that aren't any because the licenses have been bought.
That kind of leeway is normal in most processes, is it not? If you drive 1-2mph too fast, will a cop give you a ticket? I don't know about the US, but around here, we have a certain safety margin built into the system.. the cutoff is somewhere between 4 - 5 kmh if I'm not mistaken.. if you're going 54 in a 50 zone, you won't get a ticket. It comes back to the rubberband analogy really.. the laws and rules are not a straight line, they're a bit more flexible and it depends on the people involved in the process to lay them out. The law itself isn't so firm either.. it is up to judges to interprete the laws and if you're in violation or not. And judges are only human, and not every judge would make the same decision when having to deal with the same issue.

Personally, I'm convinced that even Michael Dell skipped a few corners here and then to fullfill his American Dream and there ain't nothing wrong with that as long as you stay inside a certain safety margin. I doubt that if you were to tear each and everybodys lives here apart, you'd find a few cases, where the imaginary line has been stepped over, but in most cases, it would still be inside the safety margin, or the gray zone surrounding the white one.

Quote:

As I've said, my sources tell me that there are no issues beyond the usual problems. I trust one of them and he/she has never lead me wrong. He was totally honest about the poor performance of the WM 2003 installs and I'm trusting him/her here.

Hmm, then what did he/she has to say about Dell denying there was a performance problem for several weeks? The site admin had posted benchmarks that proved beyond doubt that something was wrong with WM2k3, yet Dell was still claiming there was no problem, and they've not been officially notified of any problem.

Quote:

we aren't in Germany.

Quite true, but your statement was a bit too generic for me. Even while the majority of people here might live in the US, there are those of us who don't. Over here, you can buy an OEM license if you get it together with a HD, processor or Mainboard.

Last but not least, I have received an email from Dell orderwatch a few hours ago, stating that my order had now entered the shipping stage. Now I'm wondering, all those who say that I'm a dirty pirate, when the CD arrives at my doorstep, is my WM2k3 installation okay, or do I have to downgrade, and upgrade via the official CD again to make it okay even in your book?

nickpixel

Quote:

Originally posted by cageyjames Where did you hear that? Dell has only said it was because people were hacking the setup. Maybe that might be an issue, but from what Dell has told me, they don't plan to change the update.

a dell tech told me that was why they pulled the update -- "a problem with the installer that would take a week to fix" -- granted, he could have been lying just as easy as he could've been telling the truth but i've seen other posts that state similar conversations with tech's.

why doesn't macromedia pull all of the trial software off their website? they know people are using key-gens but people could do that if they shipped it on cd. the same thieves would have a copy of the cd version of the patch within days anyway? ms, macromedia and adobe can't prevent piracy but dell is going to figure out a way to do it for a ROM update?!?

on top of this, i've received a reply from an author of one of the articles that stated the piracy issue as the reason for removal and he said he has been flooded with similar emails (update hung at 1/13) and is doing some research and almost has enough info for a follow-up. he said the only reason he didn't include it in the original article was that he did not yet have enough info about it.

if an reason/excuse defies logic, it's probably a lie.

JmE

Quote:

Originally posted by possum4 Stop trying to condone stealing and your own dishonesty!Maybe it would be better if you got off this forum! It's for HONEST people like myself to help one another!

I am not condoning stealing. I said it was not Dell's fault. Learn to read!

Bite me.

-JmE-

JmE

Quote:

Originally posted by RacerX2oo3 ...I haven't heard asked is this: Why force users to purchase a CD and wait for it to be mailed. Why can't DELL just partner with an online retailer like Handango if they are not set up to handle this type of distribution.

That is a very good idea! I hadn't even thought of that.

Thanks,
-JmE-

Hey CageyJames,

Here is a possible solution you have been searching for. I think it would solve a lot of problems.

JmE

Quote:

Originally posted by lsout I personally installed the patch on a 2002 machine, but did not know that i was doing anything wrong , (due to the fact that i had ordered the cd..) now that i have read these threads i understand the upset it has caused, but the patch had to be brought back anyway due to the fact that 2003 users were having difficulty's with it. I dont really see how this debate is going to help solve anything, cant we just be happy aximsite forum users again? :D ps. please dont flame me this is my personal opinion

This is not a flame... I am trying to help with some info.

In all seriousness, you can restore your old backup ROM. Then you can correct your mistake if you want.

-JmE-

(Moderators, this info should not be a violation of the forum rules as it simple states that the user can correct the error. This is a legitimate use of the restore function: to go back to your previous OS version)