Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Professor Michael Geist on Vista's Fine Print

Posted by Hemos on Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:35 AM
from the peering-into-the-dark-legal-innards dept.
Russell McOrmond writes "With Microsoft's Vista set to hit stores tomorrow, Michael Geist's weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) looks at the legal and technical fine print behind the operating system upgrade. The article notes that in the name of shielding consumers from computer viruses and protecting copyright owners from potential infringement, Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user. If you are a Canadian and think that the owner of computers should be in control of what they own, rather than some third party (whether virus authors or the manufacturer/maker), then please sign our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights."

Related Stories

[+] Study Says P2P Downloaders Buy More Music 157 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist posts to his site about a study commissioned by the Canadian government intended to look into the buying habits of music fans. What the study found is that 'there is a positive correlation between peer-to-peer downloading and CD purchasing.' The report is entitled The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study For Industry Canada, and it was 'conducted collaboratively by two professors from the University of London, Industry Canada, and Decima Research, who surveyed over 2,000 Canadians on their music downloading and purchasing habits. The authors believe this is the first ever empirical study to employ representative microeconomic data.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by 8127972 (73495) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:40AM (#17800990)
    .... are former Windows users running to the Apple Store to buy a Mac.
  • Futile petitions aside (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg (306625) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:41AM (#17800992)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?
    • Re:Futile petitions aside (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:52AM (#17801154)
      (http://www.kibbee.ca/)
      I think this is probably the best option we have, although I'm not sure how well it will work. Most people just buy a computer and use whatever software comes with it. And if you start to talk about why they shouldn't be using Vista, their ears turn off because you are being too technical (no matter how much you try and dumb it down).
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Futile petitions aside (Score:5, Insightful)

      by purpledinoz (573045) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:54AM (#17801196)
      (http://www.geocities.com/purpledinoz/)
      It is, but it's hard to boycott something that most people don't have a clear understanding of. Lets face it, 80% of the people have no idea what the difference between XP and Vista is, or even what Vista even is. Furthermore, even if they do know what Vista is, they would assume it's better because it's newer (that's what I thought when I upgraded from 98SE to ME, what a disaster). There's really no chance in informing the average customer.

      But, if Vista pisses off businesses, then MS has a real problem on their hands. Businesses are already reluctant to change. They're definitely going to reject Vista if it makes them less productive. At least I'm hoping that's how it would turn out.
      [ Parent ]
    • DingDingDingDing! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Svartalf (2997) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:55AM (#17801222)
      (http://www.earlconsult.com/)
      And here I thought that Vista would be a technical security risk. Heh, little did I know that MS would do something idiotic like this to go with the lot. I'd be strongly dissuading ANYONE who was my client to go do this "upgrade" because of this alone (never mind the potential and REAL security risks that the OS seems to have...).
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Futile petitions aside by spiritraveller (Score:3) Monday January 29 2007, @11:58AM
    • Re:Futile petitions aside (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hackstraw (262471) * on Monday January 29 2007, @12:07PM (#17801400)
      (http://www.spamgourmet.com/)
      Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware?

      Not to buy. Have not given MS a dime since 1995.

      Explain to friends and workplaces. I cannot recommend MS products over the alternatives. With my friends, I clearly tell them if they are asking my advice, my answer is to buy a Mac. None to date have taken my advice, and they still ask me about "Windows problems" when I politely told them that I don't do windows and that I could not help them with windows problems upfront. Workplaces. They seem to be MS dependant despite years of suggestions to change.

      Refund? The principle of the thing is worth more than the money, and for most people, neither is that important to them.

      All I can say is that this petition is a day late and a dollar short, but although I have fixed my microsoft problem. I still know plenty of people that don't care or just won't change from the MS problem.

      I am _not_ brand loyal/disloyal. I treat all things as generic tools and will use what is best for the job at the current time, and things come and go on my shitlist, and I don't hold a permanant grudge until the company has gone too far. To date, only two companies have made my permanant shitlist, and I have brought one of them to court as well, and neither are Microsoft.

      Macs were on my offlist before OS X, but they have seen the light :)

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Futile petitions aside (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Aladrin (926209) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:31PM (#17801794)
        "Refund? The principle of the thing is worth more than the money, and for most people, neither is that important to them."

        The cost, to Microsoft, of the Refund is not just a lost sale. It's also the time and money that went into licensing and de-licensing that copy, and returning the money. It's not cheap for them.

        There's also the fact that everyone who does this can now tell everyone they know that they got their money back for their unused copy of Windows. Eventually, it'll stick in peoples' heads that they aren't stuck with Windows.

        It also gives you the ability to defuse anyone who says 'Yeah, but I've already paid for it, so I might as well use it.' If you haven't actually received the refund, they'll say it's like a rebate and you won't get it.
        [ Parent ]
      • -1, Offtopic by 75th Trombone (Score:1) Monday January 29 2007, @11:15PM
    • Petitions are not futile... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Russell McOrmond (123550) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:41PM (#17801980)
      (http://www.flora.ca/)
      The petition is to the Canadian parliament, and is on behalf of all owners of Information Technology -- not just those who choose any specific brand of hardware or software.

      Our existing petitions have already had an important effect, letting politicians know that there are more constituencies in this issue than the incumbent industry associations. Our new petition tries to move away from the myths that DRM is about "content control" when in fact it is about "hardware control". This "hardware control" impacts your usage of hardware you own, regardless of whether you are using "premium content" or not.

      This is also not a Microsoft and/or Apple issue, as these bad laws impact all users of technology whether or not they are ever a customer of Microsoft or Apple.

      http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ [digital-copyright.ca]
      "THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their own personal criteria."
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Futile petitions aside by thePowerOfGrayskull (Score:3) Monday January 29 2007, @12:51PM
    • Re:Futile petitions aside by Lord Ender (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @12:58PM
    • Re:Futile petitions aside by theshowmecanuck (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @04:27PM
  • An internet petition, of all things? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by giorgiofr (887762) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:42AM (#17801010)
    How about you just don't buy it?
  • EULA's and click thru's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gravesb (967413) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:42AM (#17801016)
    (http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com/)
    There is still a lot of debate on whether EULA's and click through agreements are completely binding. I won't get into all of the arguments on both sides, but I believe that companies are afraid to really go after anyone for breaking the asnine portions of these agreements because a court might rule that these documents are not binding contracts. They are handy for threatening people in certain situations, with cease and desist letters, and for making corporate users wary about potential law suits, thus restricting their usage and options. Of course, a court could hold that they are completely binding, and then the software companies would be free to attack an breach. So each side seems to be in an uneasy truce.
    • Re:EULA's and click thru's by porn*! (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @11:50AM
      • Re:EULA's and click thru's (Score:5, Informative)

        by Courageous (228506) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:26PM (#17801706)
        How many people really read their 10 page mortgage application? Surprisingly few. And yet the agreement is legal.

        The concept is referred to as a "contract of adhesion," where insofar as the terms in the contract are those that can be reasonably expected to be found in similar contracts for similar purpose, the contract is considered binding whether or not a "meeting of the minds" has occurred over the material details of the contract. I actually don't like contracts of adhesion at all, and wish they didn't exist. But they do.

        In many states, and I believe now in at least one federal appellate district, EULA's have been ruled to be contracts of adhesion. You can imagine my alarm. So what I'm telling you is that that EULA you didn't read is likely legal. Evil, but legal.

        C//
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's by zoward (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @01:00PM
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @01:01PM
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's by noldrin (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @01:15PM
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's by taustin (Score:3) Monday January 29 2007, @01:19PM
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's (Score:5, Informative)

          by rainman_bc (735332) on Monday January 29 2007, @01:36PM (#17802808)
          The concept is referred to as a "contract of adhesion," where insofar as the terms in the contract are those that can be reasonably expected to be found in similar contracts for similar purpose, the contract is considered binding whether or not a "meeting of the minds" has occurred over the material details of the contract. I actually don't like contracts of adhesion at all, and wish they didn't exist. But they do.

          In order to have a contract you need:
          1) Offer
          2) Acceptance
          3) Consideration
          4) Intention
          5) Capacity to contract

          Of most interesting is consideration. When you purchase an item from a store there's consideration. I offer my $5 for your pack of cigarettes. Their needs to be consideration on both sides to have a contract.

          What I find interesting is that there is no consideration in a EULA; it's one sided. You've already paid for the license, and now you're being asked to agree to the terms after the contract has been made. At no point has any more consideration happened on your part.

          Agreeing to an EULA IMO is like making a promise. If I promise someone a trip to Vegas for nothing in return, there is no contract, just a promise and it's unenforceable. I'm quite surprised no one has challenged an EULA under contract law asking where the consideration is when you agree to the therms? Simply agreeing to terms of usage without offering up any consideration is quite interesting because the money is paid to the store, and the store then sends money to the manufacturer.

          Of course the problem lies in convincing a judge that a click-through agreement after a contract has been made is not binding, and who wants to battle Micro$oft? I for one don't.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's by jmac1492 (Score:1) Monday January 29 2007, @01:50PM
        • Re:EULA's and click thru's by kfg (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @02:42PM
      • Re:EULA's and click thru's by BCW2 (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @02:57PM
    • Re:EULA's and click thru's by Gr8Apes (Score:3) Monday January 29 2007, @11:56AM
    • Re:EULA's and click thru's by phoenixwade (Score:3) Monday January 29 2007, @12:19PM
    • Can we create test cases? by DoofusOfDeath (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @12:28PM
    • Re:EULA's and click thru's by jbengt (Score:1) Monday January 29 2007, @03:27PM
    • Cedega and EULAs by mandelbr0t (Score:2) Monday January 29 2007, @03:51PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Still missing some features. (Score:5, Funny)

    by purpledinoz (573045) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:43AM (#17801034)
    (http://www.geocities.com/purpledinoz/)
    I wonder if they included the blue-screen-of-death feature that I've enjoyed for such a long time.
  • by Doomstalk (629173) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:44AM (#17801042)
    Am I the only one who is getting tired of reading all kinds of "Microsoft DRM is evil!" posts, and then seeing a post the very next day talking about how awesome Apple is? One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes. The double standard is infuriating.
  • Good article (Score:2)

    by mgiuca (1040724) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:47AM (#17801090)
    Thankyou. I regain a bit of faith in the world when mass media says stuff like this. What a pity it's in Canada. (No offense to Canadians, but it's the US where change needs to happen). But ... yeah I am sick of reading narrow-minded articles praising Vista. This article, while short, tells a much fuller story. Cheers!

    Wow, this Windows Defender(TM) seems like a piece of work. It can delete any piece of software it wants. firefox.exe, for example. (Come on, with all the security holes, it's practically spyware!)
  • by koan (80826) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:50AM (#17801112)
    (http://www.lostpacket.net/)
    Don't buy Vista, talk people out of buying it, and when they get a new computer insist on XP or Linux. (I would say Apple but they aren't much better)
    If it doesn't sell corporations won't try to do this.
  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:50AM (#17801114)
    the 'upgrade' version of Vista too (see other /. post) Been using windows since dos days, but I guess it's finally time to join the *nix crowd when next time comes to upgrade.
  • Where's the buzz? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubjames (468013) on Monday January 29 2007, @11:53AM (#17801182)
    Is it just me, or is there a complete lack of any kind of buzz around Vista?

    A search on Google News (UK) brings up loads of articles with negative titles "Buying Vista? Get a guarantee", "Windows Vista: Where Is The Wow?", "Windows Vista: the best reason to buy a Mac?", "Windows Vista disappoints, so get a Mac". And that's just in the first half of the results.

    It really is quite amazing for a product that Microsoft has spend billions and many years to develop.

    Of course the sad thing is that, because of its strangle hold on the market, it will still make billions and will be able to declare the launch a success.
  • It's all about marketing (Score:3, Funny)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:02PM (#17801328)
    (http://spiritraveller.blogspot.com/)
    And so far MS's marketing is sucking really bad from what I've seen.

    Tried to open Office 2007 and got a message about a license key and if I wanted to enter it. I clicked "No," and the entire screen went black and wouldn't come back up.

    I shook my head and laughed as I walked away.
  • Who owns what ? (Score:2)

    by alexhs (877055) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:07PM (#17801394)
    (http://dr-tools.sourceforge.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:27AM)

    If you are [...] think that the owner of computers should be in control of what they own, [...]
    <sarcasm>
    Well, Microsoft Corp. owns Microsoft Windows Vista, and by extension your computer (*), so, what's the point ?
    </sarcasm>

    (*) I mean, are you a computer user or a Microsoft OS end-user bound by license terms ?
  • by wardk (3037) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:12PM (#17801466)
    (Last Journal: Thursday July 22 2004, @11:14AM)
    it matters not what the Vista licensing is. those that are going to get it are going to get it regardless of the license.

    oh no, it's bad for consumers? but wait, it's good for consumers? you know what?

    it just doesn't matter, it's what MS is providing.

    deal with it and quit the endless WHINING

    as I once heard Peter Tosh say "Lie with Dogs, wake with Fleas"

    there are other options. no one forced anyone to buy those lousy Ford Pintos. but we know how that story ends too

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:16PM (#17801522)
    (http://www.dpbsmith.com/)
    "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."

    That's absolutely stunning. I wonder exactly how broadly that could be interpreted?

    If I buy any kind of third-party utility... antivirus software, backup software, a defragmenter... isn't that "working around" technical limiations in the software Microsoft provides? Isn't Firefox arguable a "workaround" for technical limitations in Internet Explorer?

    It's about time to stop calling it a "personal computer" and start calling it a "Microsoft corporate computer."
  • by dk.r*nger (460754) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:16PM (#17801528)

    Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user
    Since when is a user in control of his user experience? Isn't the whole point of a user oriented system (operating or other) to provide a user experience?

    Anyway, no matter how much it sucks, Vista doesn't steal your computer, and as such you don't need lawmakers or law enforcement to protect you. Download and burn an Ubuntu CD, and off you go.
  • by Seismologist (617169) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:32PM (#17801806)
    I'd have to comment on TFA and excerpt that, while yes you pay money to receive an operating system from MS, you technically do not own it, and this is legally agreed upon when you accept the EULA after you purchase Windows. The operating system is licensed to you, and this is the MS business model. It doesn't make sense trying to petition a change in MS's successful (sales) business model, nobody in Corporate America would that, in fact it is against the corporate company charter. If you read the fine print of the EULA (I have, btw), MS would refund you the full price of their OS (e.g. license) if you do not agree to the EULA. They aren't forcing you to accept their license as this would be illegal. They are plenty on alternatives other than MS to use as an operating system. In closing: You don't purchase an OS from Microsoft you purchase a LOSS (licensed operating system scheme)
  • How's that again? (Score:2)

    by Illbay (700081) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:33PM (#17801834)
    (Last Journal: Saturday February 03 2007, @01:16PM)
    If you ... think that the owner ... should be in control of what they own, rather than some third party...

    Hm. I wonder what this writer would say to the "intellectual property" owner who claims the same "right" with regards to his copyrighted music or software?

  • by TBone (5692) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:37PM (#17801914)
    (http://www.thisismyown.com/)

    ...that the petition is the PITR petition?

    I wonder how much user freedom Pitr would want people to have once he takes over Google...

  • by iamacat (583406) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:45PM (#17802054)
    When you pay money, weather it's a purchase, rental or contract, you are informed what you are buying and how long you are going to have use of it. With a purchase, you generally have at least a month to return it if it doesn't work, more time to get it repaired under warranty and thereafter you can fix it yourself.

    I have no idea what Microsoft is selling when you buy a "Windows Vista Box". They are saying they can change or cancel functionality of the product at any time, even one day after purchase, and without a notice. Even if its a rental, they have to give a 30 day notice and then refund prorated rent fee. Contracts that ask for money without the other party having any obligations are generally considered illegal - see consumer scums and pyramid schemes.

    I hope Windows Home sales are eventually ruled illegal as well, with Microsoft made to at least refund money if it messes up user's machine with Windows Genuine Check or content blurring. As for business additions, businesses that fall for that deserve what they get. Realistically, sensible companies can settle for a 5 year rental with partial refunds if functionality is interrupted.
  • Cutting through the fluff and fud... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Monday January 29 2007, @12:47PM (#17802090)
    (Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:11PM)
    Wow, he was pretty unspecific there about what he was talking about.

    Maybe it's about the HD Content Protection tech again which we've seen stories on here at Slashdot ad nauseum by now. Why is the editors even still approving this stuff? We'll soon enough know ever Slashdot members' stance on the matter. :-p

    Anyway... I agree DRM is stupid, but shouldn't these guys be barking at the paranoid media companies trying to enforce that junk, not Microsoft? Vista provides merely an implementation of the HDCP standards that are being pushed out. As long as these guys whines at Vista, nothing will change, because Microsoft will always be the kind of guys that wants to at least provide their users the option to use protected media if they really, really want to. (you aren't required to, and you're free to pirate DRM-less stuff and play it back on Vista perfectly fine) It's like he thinks Microsoft thought it was a good idea to arbitrarily limit users in how they can view protected media. In that case, he needs to provide a major part of his article giving convincing conspiracy-free details on how Microsoft would exactly profit from that. Please... Wake up and smell the fresh MPAA air. MS may be huge and bad and all, but isn't it obvious who's pulling the strings here? There's more than one behemoth developing Vista at play here.

    And when you've got a more balanced view on the situation, maybe it's even possible to realize that Vista can play free media as freely and unrestricted as OS X or Linux, and actually see that Vista only provides the option to playback DRM'ed content, just like OS X provides the option to playback FairPlay stuff, or Linux provides you the option to install non-free libraries with truly draconian licenses that would make baby Gates cry. Is this the operating systems' faults?