Is resale of Windows 10 keys legal? Windows 10 (pro, enterprise, any) that supposedly have never been activated so far are (re) sold online for 5$-20$. I assume that those are key that have initially been given out by microsoft in volumes or in countries with lower pricing (as the price is around 200$ when bought directly from microsoft). Is it legal to resell Windows license keys? Are there any kinds of Windows 10 pro/enterprise keys for which it is forbidden to resell them?
In the EU, software license resale is legal, even if explicitly forbidden by terms of any EULA or other contract imposed upon the parties. To quote the European Court of Justice's press release on its ruling in a case in Germany between Oracle and a German reseller, An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his `used' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. [...] The principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website. Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the license agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy. There are many such companies in the EU who resell software legally, including used OEM Windows licenses that are far cheaper than retail copies. This is, in my opinion, a fantastic thing -- but undoubtedly has been behind the trend towards time-limited licenses rather than perpetual ones, which we all arguably suffer from today.
(2019 update See comments for my exchange with @benrg updating this 2015 answer. In particular, they do a fair job of representing a much less &quot;paranoid&quot; take on MS's take on users' privacy than my highly skeptical one. Also, the links in the answer below are to the latest versions of the respective documents. Archive.org has 2015 versions at 2015 EULA and 2105 privacy statement.) IANAL. This answer is just a broad picture. It's a simple explanation of Microsoft's own words, as they were at the time of originally writing this (just after the final release of Windows 10). TL;DR: Microsoft does not recognize users' privacy rights. The Microsoft Privacy document does not say anything positive about privacy in this document that isn't contradicted by their own words elsewhere in the same document. Microsoft does explicitly reserve rights to share users' private data with just about anyone and everyone. Microsoft explicitly disallows legal recourse regarding privacy. The Windows 10 EULA comprehensively denies legal recourse related to privacy (and indeed anything other than IP disputes). It's Microsoft's offerings as a whole, not (just) Windows 10 The key document to focus on is Microsoft's Privacy policy document. This policy applies to many Microsoft products and services, including, but definitely not limited to, Windows 10. Microsoft reserve the right to share your private data Quoting the &quot;Privacy&quot; document, Microsoft reserves the right to share users' private data: among Microsoft-controlled affiliates and subsidiaries with vendors or agents working on our behalf as part of a corporate transaction such as a merger or sale of assets [to] comply with applicable law [to] respond to valid legal process [to] protect our customers, for example to prevent spam [to] operate and maintain the security of our services [to] protect the rights or property of Microsoft as necessary to complete any transaction or provide any service you have requested or authorized Do users have any privacy rights? One can presumably fight for one's (perceived) rights even if Microsoft attempts to deny them. However, from the English Windows 10 EULA: you and we agree to try for 60 days to resolve [a dispute] informally. If we can’t, you and we agree to binding individual arbitration ... and not to sue in court Additionally, collective action or any other form of representative action is explicitly disallowed. Windows 10 data collection defaults to &quot;Full&quot; mode You've said that what data is collected is off topic. But I think it's worth recognizing that, with Windows 10, Microsoft have made the most popular install option collect and send to their cloud all data collected from your local device (&quot;Full&quot; collection) and have effectively made it a breach of contract to reduce it below a minimal level (&quot;Basic&quot; collection) that they get to determine and change as they see fit. And they can pretty much enforce the latter; if you hack a system to stop &quot;Basic&quot; data being sent to MS, they explicitly disable updates for that system.
The only issue relevant to your age is the (ir)revocability of the license. GPLv3 purports to be an irrevocable license. To be really irrevocable, the license would need to grant certain rights in exchange for something of value, that is, you need a license that passes muster as a contract. Copyright licenses are typically treated as contracts, but it is not clearly established in law that licenses are contracts or are not contracts. Out of the goodness of your heart, you can grant permission to use your property, but you can also withdraw that permission. If you have a contract granting perpetual permission to use your property in exchange for something of value, then you can't later withdraw that permission. In the case of Jacobsen v. Kratzer, the sides advances opposing theories that the license was a "bare license" vs. was a contract. (The matter was ultimately settled out of court). This article puts together the legal factors surrounding the notion of license as contract, see p. 21 ff, and esp. §IV for arguments that licenses should be contracts, to be fully enforceable. A contract for non-essentials formed with a minor is not enforceable, until you are 18. You could therefore revoke the license, until you are 18. Anyone who uses the software does so at their peril. However, if the license is not a contract, no existing legal doctrine (in the US) whereby the permission is irrevocable. In other words, yes you can, at their peril. The whole license-as-contract issue is very complicated, and I'm only focusing on the revocability issue. There is a separate question whether one can sue a user for both copyright infringement and breach of contract. The case of Artifex v. Hancom, see also this analysis, found that (in the particular case), plaintiff can pursue the matter as both infringement and contract breach.
According to this site in the UK apparently there are laws against calling something free if it was part of the entire package before or if was added later and the price went up Example of the latter: LG sold a TV. They then added a sound bar, increased the price and listed the TV as TV for $XXX + free sound bar. They ran afoul of the regulations Also adding something and calling the addition free is okay if the price didn't go up but you can only advertize it as free for 6 months. After 6 months the law considers it included by default and therefore no longer free.
In the Netherlands, this qualifies as a deceptive trade practice (misleidende handelspraktijk) and is therefore directly illegal. It's likely also an unfair trade practice, (oneerlijke handelspraktijk) as the claim appears intended for end consumers. This means that the seller cannot count on the consumer knowing anythong about stuffase. It is a dutch implementation of EU directive 2005/29/EG, so similar laws apply in other EU countries. But the illegal per se part might vary.
Illegal to write? No. Notwithstanding the First Amendment which would almost certainly make a law prohibiting it illegal, writing such things is an essential part of an IT security professional’s toolkit. You can’t protect against worms if you don’t know how they work. Illegal to distribute on an unauthorised computer? Absolutely. This would be a clear breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
This is going to depend on several things. First of all, do you have a lawful, licensed copy of the SDK? My understanding is that Nintendo only licensed the SDK to selected game companies. If what you have is an unauthorized copy, you do not have the legal right even to use it. If what you have is properly licensed, then you do. Or is what you have an unofficial SDK created by someone other than Nintendo? Secondly, what does the license agreement that comes with the SDK provide? Does it require developers to register with Nintendo? If it does, you will need to comply. Nintendo cannot prevent others from writing programs designed to run on their hardware. But they can control who uses their development software, if they choose to. You cannot reproduce in your game any of Nintendo's copyrighted software (or anyone else's) without permission. That applies even more strongly if you intend to sell the software. But you can use any development software for which you have a valid license in whatever ways its license permits. I would expect this includes creating games. It would include selling games that you create that do not use any of Nintendo's code, unless there is a specific provision forbidding that in the license agreement.
This sounds like legal nominative use to me. The issue is trademark. Trademark law isn't a monopoly on using the trademark, it is a prohibition on using the trademark in a way that misleads a customer about who is selling something or what is being sold. You cannot sell goods in a manner that implies inaccurately an affiliation or endorsement of a trademark owner, causing confusion in the mind of a reasonable consumer. But, it sounds like your disclosure makes a factually accurate statement without implying or stating that the goods are sold with the affiliation or endorsement of Kodak, only that you used their goods as parts in your product. To be safe, in order to be completely clear and avoid all doubt, you might want to say, in addition, &quot;This produce is not licensed or authorized by Kodak.&quot; The First Sale rule expressly protects your right to resell physical good protected by trademark or copyright to someone else, so the sale itself is not illegal, it is just a question of whether you have abridged its trademark. Conceptually, what you are doing isn't that different from stating that the used car you are selling had all replacement parts obtained to maintain and repair it done with dealer approved parts, rather than third-party knock offs, which would likewise be legal. Similarly, you could sell a house with a listing that identifies the brand of every building material used. For example, &quot;this house was constructed using Pella Windows.&quot;