1) I believe the system vendors have an agreement with mickeyshaft when they ship it's OS that they can provide "system restore media" or whatever you want to call it, the system vendors choose to include this on a partition on the system's fixed disk rather than on optical media (lower costs). So I'm afraid you're wrong and can't blame them for that...

2) You don't legally own the windows operating system, you own a licence to run it and must comply with the terms of the licence agreement. If you do not like the terms, don't buy/install/accept it.

Which cannot be proven either way, will not stand up in court anyway and is not permitted under the licence terms of the software either...

@caravel: Huh? No your typical pirated version of Windows is cracked so it doesn't need to be activated with a valid license. You said it yourself, you're buying a license to Windows, not the disc. So selling a disc for recovery purposes without a license is NOT piracy. It depends how you look at it, Comet is charging because it costs them money to create that recovery disc. Nothing is free when provided as a service. Obviously the law will be on Microsoft's side, but you don't have to agree with it.

That's what I said, pirate versions of windows do not ship with a licence...

The discs Comet distributed also did not have a licence, which some seem to believe makes them legal...?!

You're buying:

1) A Licence to use the software.
2) A disc.
3) Packaging and documentation.

You don't automatically get rights to resell and redistribute. All of that aside, Comet are not even the end user so that's somewhat irrelevant anyway...

*sigh*

Redistributing proprietary software - for "recovery" or otherwise - without a licence is close to piracy (in MS' language it is piracy) - add "selling" to that and you have pretty clear cut piracy. Unauthorised copies were generated and sold for to end users for profit, end users who had already paid for the software - Comet were selling software which wasn't theirs to sell in the first place. Whatever Comet's intent, they have fouled up badly and should have known better. The fellow who authorised this is most likely going to be out of a job, whatever happens next.

Redistribution with a fee to cover the media, etc is permissible under certain free software licences (MIT, BSD, GNU GPL, etc) but certainly not under any mickeyshaft licence...

No I think you'll find that it depends on how MS, the lawyers and the courts see it. Right and wrong and our own personal opinions don't come into it.

Comet should not have created the recovery discs - they are just a reseller - such agreements are formed with the OEM. Comet are squarely to blame here and pulling the old "in consumers' interests" bollocks is not going to cut it.

@caravel:
*sigh*

So if it were the PC manufacturer who included the recovery disc with their computers, that would be fine? You don't think they factor in additional costs when pricing their computers? Of course they do, however minor, that recovery disc is included in the price of the computer. Therefore for they are "legally" selling recovery discs.

As for your comment about buying the license, disc, packaging and documentation. Sure if you purchase from a retail outlet, of course you can buy licenses directly from Microsoft without any disc packaging or documentation.

Microsoft includes the ability to create your own recovery discs within Windows. Comet is simply doing this for customers who are too computer illiterate to do it for themselves. Of course they're going to charge for such a service.

You're obviously just looking to argue and come out as being "right". As I said, I know Microsoft has the law on their side, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. If you're too ignorant to understand that, then so be it.

Comet needs to counter sue MS for not supplying a way to recover from a HDD crash. Comet was willing to overlook the issue and fix this stupidity themselves. This wouldn't even be an issue if MS hadn't decided to cut corners and eliminate the hard copy of their work.

The PC manufacturer (OEM) has a deal with mickeyshaft... that's what some of those responding here, including you Guest, don't seem to get. The retailer (in this case Comet) does not have any kind of deal with Microsoft or the OEM, they simply resell.

Comet are not the end user they're a reseller. Once again: Comet manufactured illegal copies and sold them on to end users for profit, Some people here think that's permissible because those end users had a windows licence. It's not allowed by the proprietary software licence under which windows OS is distributed..

Which makes Comet's case even weaker. Selling something which the OS allows the end user to create at the cost of a DVD-R (a few of which are often supplied with OEM systems).

I'm afraid that what you fail to understand is that they are not legally allowed to copy and redistribute it in the first place. They should not even be providing the "service"...

Whereas you are...?

I consider myself to be reasonably correct on this. What I have stated so far is in a nutshell: Comet redistributed copyrighted, patented material protected under a proprietary software licence, without authorisation from mickeyshaft, on an "industrial" scale. Ethics or whether you or I agree with this, don't even come into that.

I see, so someone is "too ignorant to understand" because they don't agree with you? :haha:

Mickeyshaft have the law on their side, this is why I consider myself to be reasonably correct. I also think the "ethical" argument being bandied around here is complete and utter bollocks. If you dislike their licensing or how OEMs wh0re themselves out to them, you have the following option - do not buy branded machines that ship with windows (also be aware that OEM windows is passed on to the end user at a much lower cost than a retail copy - it's about proliferation and dominance of the desktop OS market.). Mickeyshaft got where they are today because people, complained about restrictions, bitched and moaned about invasive copy protection and validation methods, yet still bent over, greased up and bought their products.

Mickeyshaft stopped supplying the real OEM windows discs with systems because unscrupulous retailers were flogging them on at knockdown prices, reusing them on multiple systems and stacks of them were finding their way into car boot sales and computer fairs. Mickeyshaft are not to blame.

Instead OEMs can provide the means of system recovery under their licence agreement with Mickeyshaft. OEMs chose to cut costs (and corners) and have taken to the shittastic "recovery partition" idea. The OEMs did that, not Mickeyshaft (apparently some OEMs do still provide discs, though I've never actually come across any as yet).

Mickeyshaft provide the user with a means of creating a proper system recovery back up. Like most Windows programs it's designed for *****as - your average "computer illiterate" grandmother could slip in a DVD and run the backup. Windows 8 apparently has made further improvements on this. Most OEMs also provide their own tools for creating "system restore discs"...

When you buy retail windows, you buy it on a disc for the retail price. The licence usually enables you to make no more than one backup and only install it on one PC.

When you buy OEM windows, you buy it pre-installed on a PC (the service for your "computer illiterates" who do not know how to install an OS), you are entitled to make one backup of this to reinstall only on the same hardware. The Mickeyshaft licence actually considers a second installation or backup contained on the same HDD as the "backup" copy...

There is nothing in the licensing however allowing retailers to create these backups for the user, get them mass produced at a factory, branded up and sold back to the user for £15 a time. Comet were not providing a service, they were simply preying on ignorance and making a profit out of it.

All they have to do is tell the judge that they did not charge for Windows. Only for the labor in creating the disk. Case dismissed.

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and will argue to the bitter end. I stated my opinion, you don't have to agree with it.

So, assuming this is the same poster; when someone disagrees with you they're "too ignorant to understand" and if someone argues against your views it's because they have "a lot of time on [their] hands"...

That's charitable of you...

:rolleyes:

@caravel: Yes, I am the same poster. You win! Your prize is three statements you can argue about:

1. Rely on foods that take little or no cooking. Use dishes you have frozen.

2. Send out the laundry or hire someone to come in and do it. Try to create less laundry.

3. As the fire burns down the kindling, it will be necessary to adjust the logs and possibly add more newspaper to the top of the fire or under the kindling.

@caravel: Taking my words out of context. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. I don't understand why you feel the need to continue. I'm not religious, but I don't force my views on those who are. Sometimes it's best to agree to disagree.