Microsoft Media Player "Security Patch" Changes EULA Big Time 771
MobyTurbo writes "In an article on BSD Vault a careful reader posts that in the latest Windows Media Player security patch, the EULA (the "license agreement" you click on) says that you give MS the right to install digital rights management software, and the right to disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer." So if you want your machine secure,
you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC.
MS/Borg (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MS/Borg (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MS/Borg (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MS/Borg (Score:2)
Re:MS/Borg (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MS/Borg (Score:2, Interesting)
extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:extortion (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
Legality of EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting point. How legally binding *IS* the EULA? It's generally accepted that in internet transactions involving credit card numbers, a customer can at any time deny having made the transaction. Without a signature, there's no way to PROVE that the customer made the transaction: they can't take that customer to court. This is why there is a much larger allowance for bad debts on online credit card transactions. In a real-life transaction with a carbon copy, all they need is your signature to prove that you made the transaction, and they can sue you.
In that vein, how can the EULA possibly be legally binding? I can see how the signature on the invoice for their computer or copy of Windows, they could be held liable. However, how can I user clicking on "OK" in a upgrade screen be legally binding?
I don't understand how the judicial/legislative system has allowed them to get away with this, whereas credit card companies are screwed on fraudulent online transactions. This doesn't make any sense to me. Some court somewhere should be able to strike down the EULA as non-binding contracts, due to the lack of a customer signature or any other proof that the customer entered the transaction.
Re:Legality of EULA (Score:2)
In that vein, how can the EULA possibly be legally binding?
It depends what the EULA says. In this case, the EULA is not making the end-user liable for anything, it is merely limiting Microsoft's liablity.
My friend, it's called UCITA (Score:5, Informative)
That is, until they're safely set up inside a UCITA-adopting state.
Why, you ask? What's this UCITA anyway? Not another acronym. I'm too lazy to write another letter. Trying to keep my phone bill down. And I can never keep my boycotts straight once I get to the store.
From the mouth of the beast... [ucitaonline.com]
And on a slightly more ethical tip...
The FSF's writeup [gnu.org]
And the CPSR's writeup [cpsr.org]...
Google will give you more.
Think your EULA's not binding? UCITA gives it all that 100%-All-American Bought and Paid For Congressional Stamp of Approval. Some democracy we have, huh?
-David
I give this troll a 7 out of 10 (Score:3, Funny)
I give you only a seven because, while creative, your position is too blatant; anyone with even a made-for-TV level of familiarity on the last few decades, ehh, months of this country's history, will know whose kool-aid you're drinking.
Anyway, I hearby bestow the coveted Richard M. Nixon Good Citizen's Award for trying.
Happy hysteria,
-Dave
Re:Legality of EULA (Score:5, Informative)
The unfortunate state of civilization today is that it is governed by men and not by laws. Thus it doesn't matter whether a EULA (any EULA) is legally binding or not. All that matters is that enough people think they are.
In terms of the law, most EULAs are completely invalid. Exercise of pre-existing rights is considered assent. There is a total lack of consideration. And there is no way to verify that a particular "licensee" has even seen the contract.
In terms of Rule by Fallible Human Beings, EULAs are completely valid if you can get enough people to believe that they are valid. But even if you can't, you can still take them to court and draw out the process to bleed them dry until the give in and settle.
I don't understand how the judicial/legislative system has allowed them to get away with this, whereas credit card companies are screwed on fraudulent online transactions.
The difference is easy. The average person cares about losing money. But the average person is very ignorant about their legal rights with regards to copyrightable materials, especially when it concerns software.
Wait until some large company starts putting the screws to enough people. Then the situation will change. Bankrupt enough grandmas in court for EULA violations, and the public opinion will change.
Aluminium (Score:3, Interesting)
Agree. Aluminium `the eternal metal' was once rare and precious.
Re:Legality of EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this interesting? When you sign or accept a contract, you are bound to it, whether you read and understand it or not. If you don't understand it, don't agree to it until you do understand it.
I note that most EULAs reservie the right to change the EULA at any time without notice. How about if when I click 'I Agree', I also say I hereby claim the right to alter this agreement at any time by posting notice in my underwear drawer!
Why not, it's just as fair. If the corporations don't like it, they shouldn't accept my money. If the courts have any sense of fairness left in them, they will either uphold both or rule both to be invalid.
Re:extortion (Score:4, Interesting)
Horseshit! You can't change a EULA without notification. This is Contract Law 101. You can't change a contract unilaterally. Show me a EULA which reserves the right to change itself without notice and I'll show you a EULA that has no feet to stand on.
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
The concept of a EULA is not silly. A paper signature is only one way to prove that you actually indulged in the transaction. It is not necessary to prove that you actually did. And nowhere can anyone change the terms of a contract without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes. It hasn't happened in this instance and won't happen ever.
Re:extortion (Score:3, Informative)
In the only _real_ law book I've read on the subject, which reads as easy as applied cryptography's first few chapters(seriously, it's very basic the hard shit follows), explains that a contract contains a portion where they must provide something while you must also. Either party fails to provide it's side of the deal the contract is null or goes into despute (court)
No one party can change lines of a contract or edit the final conditions without the users consent (read:signature). Of course clicking YES to the new one _could_ be the same
Forget the EULA, watch for the *next* patch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
No. M$ has lawyers that would have picked that up pretty quickly. Do you think they would want another scandal, in the wake of the anti-trust suits and now the accounting problems that are happening all throughout corporate america? I don't think they would be that stupid as to cause another magnifying glass to be scrutinizing them. They are just playing the dumb pawn in the RIAA/MPAA game. If they were to be tried for 'extortion', they can simply plea that they were conforming to the DMCA by preventing its users from engaging in illegal activity thus eliminating their liability.
If I disagree with the EULA, and someone exploits the security hole the patch was designed to fix, can Microsoft be held liable?
No, because if you disagree with the EULA you are automatically forbidden from applying the security patch in the first place. If you didn't install the patch because of disagreement from the EULA, then you have no right to the security 'benefits' the patch brings. So in short, if you don't and you get hacked, its your own fault, not theirs.
All this microsoft legal stuff is quite fascinating. I am still waiting to hear that M$ has been over stating their earnings. In their case, they are probably understating (for tax purposes)
Re:extortion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Liability issue (Score:5, Funny)
To: Owners of Tucker Torpedo automobiles
Subject: Recall
It has come to our attention that the Tucker Torpedo automobile has a manufacturing defect which could cause it to explode from time to time. We have developed a fix for this "problem". Bring your Torpedo to any licensed Tucker dealership for repairs.
Oh, the fix will prevent your Tucker from being used to transport campaign material for political candidates not approved by the Tucker Motor Car Company. If you disagree with this policy, you are free to stop driving your Torpedo and leave it parked in the garage.
Sincerly, Mr. Bill.
==========
Now, do you think that would go over with the NTSB?
sPh
Re:Liability issue (Score:4, Insightful)
sPh
Re:extortion (Score:2)
Generally, US courts are not too friendly to attempts by entities to "make an ass of the law" by structuring transactions that clearly have all the characteristics of one type (sales) as transactions of a different type (leases).
sPh
So where is the end? (Score:3, Interesting)
When is the user going to quit rolling over and taking in the rear with a smile and being forced by the EULA to say "thank you may I please have another?"
Or is the general populace pretty much doomed.
Re:So where is the end? (Score:5, Interesting)
After the disaster. I can keep my GPG private key pretty secure, because
- Only one person (me) has access to it
- Nobody particularly wants it
Windows probably uses public key crypto to verify when Microsoft is attacking it, so that it can decide to allow the attack. When this company,- who has thousands of employees,
- whose products are used by governments and large, juicy, corporations,
- who has repeatedly demonstrated lack of security consciousness,
loses control of the root-any-Windows-box key, it will become Interesting Times for all Windows users. Everywhere (including here on Slashdot, you can bet) there will be howls of laughter. But among the Windows users, and in Congress, the words will finally be spoken out loud: "Something has to be done."But I don't think anything can happen before the disaster. It's just not how our culture works.
Re:So where is the end? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So where is the end? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really.
"They send you a new agreement when THEY decide to change it,"
By doing so, they are giving you the notice they are required by law to give. They are in effect saying "enclosed are proposed changes to our contract..."
"and your only option is to cut the card in half and send it back to them."
And if you don't agree to the changes in the contract, you are allowed to terminate the contract, just like hundreds of years of common law allow.
That's where MS changing the EULA unilaterally is different. One can always get a different cc card - the field is hugely competitive. But, since MS is a convicted monopolist, by definition I DO NOT have any competitive options. I CAN'T just say "Screw you, MS - I'm uninstalling Windows" - there is little competition.
Re:So where is the end? (Score:2)
Not new. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, it's bad, and it's always been bad.
Re:Not new. (Score:2)
Re:Not new. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not new. (Score:5, Informative)
It had been noticed by /. readers... (Score:4, Informative)
automatic EULA remover (Score:3, Informative)
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:4, Informative)
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:2, Insightful)
twofold: (1) to make a point about the absurdity of hidden "agreements"
that buyers cannot know about until after sale, and (2) to be able to
honestly say that I never accepted any EULA, and thus my use of the
software is limited only by copyright law, just like a book or a CD."
Hmm... and removing that EULA click-through page you won't be liable? And the other trueth is that if I close my eyes I'm invisible.
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's take it from another angle: You buy an ice cream. When you open the wrap cover, you find a small agreement saying "in order to eat this ice cream, you must agree to also stand on your head and make a sound like a horny lion, ten times, in a public place". So what do you do, sign it or return the ice cream? No, because tossing it into the nearest waste basket would make your afternoon a nice walk in the park enjoying your ice cream - since just because somebody tries to force you into "agreeing" to something before using a product doesnt mean it's illegal for you to use it without agreeing.
A side note: That'd be "truth" you're looking for.
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:3)
'cause if you're proactively downloading a EULA remover, you're not exactly using the software legally. You obviously knew there was a contract but tried to get around it. "Oh, officer, I didn't have to stop there because I cut down the stop sign and took it home!"
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:3)
WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG! Most software purchases are in fact licenses, with terms of use and the option for the company to revoke your license.
This has been held up by the courts, so don't spout some BS about how it's illegal and doesn't matter anyways.
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:3, Interesting)
Security Patches are the getting worse (Score:4, Interesting)
MS is without a doubt throwing non-security things into "security patches", and I for one don't like the unadvertised "featues" one bit.
-Pete
Re:Security Patches are the getting worse (Score:2)
Not the end of the world at least (Score:2)
-jhp
PNG packs tighter than TIFF (Score:4, Informative)
I thought it was bad recently when a "Critical" IE6 security path completetly broke the ability to view TIFF images in a browser without hacking the registry by hand.
Actually, it was Microsoft dropping support for Netscape plug-ins such as QuickTime 5 because of a patent dispute.
I maintain a web site that basically sells access to TIFF imaged documents.
Adobe TIFF has three common lossless modes [apple.com]: Apple PackBits (RLE algorithm used in MacPaint and at least one NES game), CCITT Fax (a strange bilevel image codec used by fax machines), and Unisys LZW [burnallgifs.org]. PNG, on the other hand, uses Phil Katz's Deflate (LZSS on a 32 KB window, followed by Huffman coding), which makes smaller files than any of TIFF's three algorithms.
What does TIFF [libtiff.org] do that PNG [libpng.org] doesn't?
Re:PNG packs tighter than TIFF (Score:3, Interesting)
TIFF has a deflate compression scheme too, though not everyone supports it. TIFF can be smaller; CCITT Fax, which is designed for bilevel text, actually works better than PNG for bilevel text.
What does TIFF do that PNG doesn't?
JPEG. Multiple images in one picture; libtiff's registered tags allow for a 3D scan to be stored in one file as a series of slices. Thumbnails can be included by the same mechanism. It can also be used like PDF, in holding an entire document in one file. It provides for anyone to register new tags, for arbitary extension. It's an extraordinarily flexible file format.
Re:PNG packs tighter than TIFF (Score:3, Interesting)
Does PNG support multiple images in one file? Don't take this as a troll...I've had fax software that would store all the pages of an incoming fax in a single TIFF file that could be viewed/printed/etc. Does PNG support a similar capability?
(For images on a website that you don't want to put through JPEG losses, PNG rocks.)
Easy choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Just use a different media player.
BlazeMediaPro, Winamp, more, take your pick.
oh and yeah, add microsoft.com to your hosts file
Re:Easy choice (Score:3, Informative)
If you dont run it (remove it even) how can it be a security risk? Common sense?
As for the adding ms to the hosts file, i was joking.
Re:Easy choice (Score:2)
What if the next security patch for IE 6 has the same language? You can't uninstall IE 6, as far as I know... it has its grubby little fingers everywhere. MS certainly claims it can't be removed. So how do I run a secure box if the security patches include onerous EULA terms?
Oh, wait, I know the answer for that one: Don't run Windows.
Is this new (Score:2)
Brownie Points with DRM advocates (Score:2, Insightful)
And in the balance: security vs control.
Either the villanous attackers are in control/capable of control
OR
Microsoft is in control.
Geez. It's a lose-lose situation.
Re:Brownie Points with DRM advocates (Score:5, Interesting)
I was there for most of the live presentation, and during the Q&A someone got up and asked what would happen if the keys were compromised, for example someone found a way to hack the unique id in a player. The MS guy indicated that the keys for an entire brand/model of player could be shut off if necessary. The next question, of course, was how the buyers of those players would feel when their expensive players became useless. The MS guy said that the decision to shut off access wouldn't be Microsoft's, but they could do so on a court order, for example.
Why would someone want to buy a portable media player (or desktop media player for that matter) that could become worthless a few months later because someone else hacked it and rendered the DRM insecure? You wouldn't. Why would a manufacturer want to take the chance that they'd be involved in a messy class-action suit from customers because their portable media player now can't play music? They wouldn't.>/b>
I just can't see how this can come to pass.
Corporate users can't install that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Corporate users can't install that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Corporate users can't install that (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen those companies that require you to get IT for every little thing. The usual result-- IT cops a major attitude, nothing gets installed, everything breaks, and no one gets a damned thing done.
Re:Corporate users can't install that (Score:2)
The alternative is no cake walk -- thousands of users with WinAmp and Comet Cursor installed, worms, viruses and malware everywhere.
Re:Corporate users can't install that (Score:3, Insightful)
If you develop on Windows, well, there's your problem.
-jhp
Why I no longer work in technology (Score:3, Insightful)
In many situations, system administrators are responsible for system uptime and often given zero authority to enforce, create or even suggest policies which get in the way of whiny developers, regardless of the resultant increase in code quality[1]. Talented software engineers are a lot harder to find than talented system administrators because hiring managers perversely ignore most of the people who can do the job right, merely because said applicants are over 35. Most companies would rather try to replace a sysadmin than a software engineer because the chief job of the system administrator in a small-to-midsize organization is to hide and absorb institutional incompetence.
Then again, any software engineer who would demand root on a production system is probably insufficiently skilled to understand basic computing concepts like "separation of privilege" (as seen very recently in OpenSSH), "compartmentalization", "principle of least surprise", and so forth. Far from being engineers in any sense of the term, they're at best "code jockeys" and ought to be physically beaten on a daily basis with classic computer science texts. 90% of them are nothing more than whiners with degrees, and the other 10% design software for the users -- all of them including the poor sot who has to restart that crashy server at 2am every second or third morning.
I left the technology industry about a year ago, and until more of the antipatterns shake out I don't plan on returning. Unfortunately, the corporate circle jerk has much invested in maintaining these antipatterns so I don't expect the situation will get better soon. As much antipathy as I have for people, professional body piercing sounds like a far preferable career with less bullshit and higher hourly pay. For that matter, so would pizza delivery or auto parts order desk.-jhp
Re:Corporate users can't install that (Score:4, Funny)
GZK?
Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Now there's a particularly nasty line. It starts off with DRM for 'Secure Content' (which I guess is M$'s new term for protected IP), but then it expands into 'Other Programs'. Which means, MS is now reserving the right to disable any program they don't like.
Furthermore, the patch that disables the program will "will be automatically downloaded onto your computer," without your knowledge. But, the real kicker is this one (my favourite line):
If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
So even if they send out patches killing off all non-MS software, they can bury a notice so deep in microsoft.com that no one will ever find it, and claim (correctly) they are going above and beyond the EULA. Damn, I'm glad I use Macs and NetBSD.
Groan.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Every move Microsoft has made follows
Machiavellian politics to the letter.
It's no longer about money, it's about
power. Microsoft will continue to find
ways to gain more control of computers,
and eventually will try to directly
attack other operating systems and make
them illegal. Microsoft doesn't even have
to worry about serving customers anymore.
There's almost too much momentum to over-
come here, folks. The only way that our
computers will belong to us in the future
is to make sure that we control how they
are used. Keep the hardware in the hands
of smaller manufacturers who have to
compete. Keep the software in the public
domain wherever possible.
At this point, even Apple looks good com-
pared to Microsoft. They have to listen
to their customers, they have adopted con-
cepts from better operating systems and
made it easier for users to use a com-
puter for any purpose they desire.
It doesn't matter what OS you use; BSD, Linux,
Solaris, or any of the other options. But by
choosing something other than Windows you
will help keep control in your hands. At this
point it would take thirty years for Microsoft
to go out of business, but we need to be looking
ahead. Do not accept these incremental attacks
on your freedom.
Re:Groan.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're wrong on the "eventually" part. This campaign against other operating systems, as well as other technologies that threaten MS's dominance. What do you think the SSSCA/CBDTPA/S. 2048 bill is all about? Why do you think that Intel, IBM, and just about every other major tech company is screaming that they're scared shitless about this bill? Right now, Microsoft is going for checkmate in the technology game and this bill is their first move in their campaign. Should Microsoft even partially succeed in this campaign to bring every other tech company to its knees and force them to pay tribute (both financially and in policy matters) to Redmond, Microsoft will become the most powerful modern corporation in history.
Although this legislation has the proverbial snowball's chance of passing this time around, I feel that its main provisions will be enacted by the end of the decade unless Congress and Microsoft both get bludgeoned severely. These provisions may get enacted in a piecemeal fashion, but the two factors that will cause S. 2048 to become law are (a) Microsoft's huge war chest from which it can make "campaign contributions" and (b) Congress's tendancy to accept these "contributions" in exchange for favorable legislation for the contributor. The most obnoxious part of this legislation is the fact that it requires all hardware made in or imported to the United States to implement one DRM scheme dictated either by industry consensus or by the Commerce Department in 12 to 18 months if the industry can't reach a consensus. In addition, antitrust concerns will not be applicable to the process of reaching this DRM standard.
Here's the killer for all the other players in the tech industry: Microsoft holds most of the important patents for implementing DRM in software as well as major portions of implementing it in hardware. Unless another company's DRM research pans out no later than a year after this provision were to become law, there would be no alternative to whatever scheme Microsoft comes out with. Then, the Commerce Department would then impose the Microsoft standard on the nation's technology industry, extending Microsoft's grasp from the PC world to a significant portion of the U.S. GNP. Sun and IBM would be at the mercy of Microsoft, and since these companies are enemies of Gates & Co., it is likely that Microsoft would be able to use its control over these DRM patents to marginalize or even destroy these companies by making it impossible for these competitors to release new, innovative products that would, by law, include these DRM technologies.
Intel, AMD, Cisco, and other companies that primarily make hardware and most importantly don't produce software products that compete head-on with Microsoft's will also have a harder time profiting. Though it wouldn't be in MS's interest to destroy them, the folks in Redmond would be interested in taxing these companies based on a portion of their revenues for access to DRM technologies that they would need to sell new products. And MS would probably also wield enough muscle to force AMD and Intel to design future processors to run only future versions of Windows. If the Pentium 7 proved capable of running Linux, BeOS, or even Windows 2000, Microsoft could flush Intel down the drain faster than you can say "Enron."
Intel and IBM have advocated that the market determine the fate of DRM schemes. This will allow American businesses and consumers to determine which ones get adopted and which ones fall away. It should not be the government's right to state that Americans have the choice of buying a PC with Palladium installed or not buying a PC at all. It especially is not the government's prerogative to grant a company what is effectively an unregulated monopoly to a major portion of the U.S. economy, as every software and computer hardware company would be under the foot of Microsoft in a post SSSCA world.
We Americans like to boast about the fact that we reap the benefits of participating in a "capitalist" economy. Capitalism, in the ideal sense of the word, has never been practiced in history, just as communism has never been truly enacted in a country. If you define capitalism as the "Golden Rule" of "he who has the gold rules", then perhaps by vision of capitalism should really be called "laissez-faire socialism" or something. In my book, as soon as a movie studio buys the DMCA, or Microsoft buys the CBDTPA, or any other company purchases legislation that treats itself or its industry differently than the rest of the economy, it's proof that the U.S., like the rest of the world, is really a plutocracy. I think that the Microsoft situation is really just a symptom of a much larger illness of the American economy.
The next several years will determine the fate of the American economy and as well as the U.S. role in world affairs for the next several generations. This claim covers a lot more than Microsoft. It covers the tendancy of the U.S. government allowing Big Business to take on a bigger and bigger role in dictating legislation and policy matters. It may be that the Enron and WorldCom fiascos, the mega-mergers of the 1990s, the artificial "oil crisis" that caused the price of gasoline to exceed $2.50/gallon in some parts of the U.S., and the tens of billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that major employers across the country have been able to extort from cities and states have pissed Americans to the point where they feel the pendulum has to start moving the other way. I really hope we've reached that point, because if we're not there now, things may never change. If we were to continue on the present course, I think in the next 30 years, we're going to see the game of capitalism end once and for all, and the handful of winners of that game forming an oligarchy that will control the U.S. and its sphere of influence for the forseeable future. We would get to the point where each major sector of the economy is subject to the stranglehold one company which carries enough power to destroy any challenger to its market share before it can gain a foothold. There would be one dominant software company (in this post I have discussed my fear that this would be Microsoft), one dominant electronics company, one dominant energy company, one dominant bank, one dominant food supplier. The U.S. was actually pretty close to this point shortly after 1900, with Standard Oil, Ma Bell, the bank trusts and the like, and it took a remarkable shift in government policy (antitrust laws, worker safety laws, etc.) to change the American economy into a more truly competitive game. The U.S. is nearing the high-water mark of industry consolidation reached at the beginning of the 20th century. The industry consolidation scenario has repeated itself; I really hope that the popular uprisings that occured as a result of that are about to repeat themselves too.
Please tell me that the scenarios I've described are unrealistic. I really hope I'm being paranoid and that Microsoft will become merely a player and not The Player of the 2010's technology industry. IBM was stopped in the 1970's and 1980's in the courts (ironically enough it was never even convicted of antitrust violations), hopefully Microsoft will be next.
I don't believe it! (Score:2)
alternatives (Score:2, Informative)
No surprise (Score:2)
Your Windoze-PC, that is....
Think of your colo-provider - once you've got the root-password, they also dismiss any liability for damages from your acts.
I'm sure, the various critics of the antitrust trial of the DoJ and the states can name some reasons why this is good for the consumer....
:-)
scope creep (Score:2, Interesting)
Back In The Olden Days, why, we just wrote our own software! Companies sold hardware and a compiler. That has slowly changed, and now we are staring down the barrel of the 'software subscription' gun. Meaning, you will have as much control over the nature and quality of your software (and hence your entire computing experience) as you have over the programming on broadcast TV. Which is, none at all. The masses are thrilled with that (they still watch TV, too) and M$ and all the others are selling to the masses and probably not a single reader of this post. So yeah it sucks when M$ takes control, as if they never had control, but if you have a problem with that you can join with a bunch of software rebels and create your own software, and license it the way you like. Yeah sure I'm not the first to come up with that idea, but before we lament what the software companies do because we let them, we can just go around them.
After all, we do still own the hardware. For now.
WANL and that is the problem ... (Score:2)
What I don't understand is why we haven't seen class action lawsuits brought against Micro$oft (and a few others) from the consumer end. If some smart lawyers out there want to make a buck this is the place to be (IMO). Examples:
1. M$ changing EULA's during software updates. This is the ultimate, IMO. A company should not be able to change the EULA after the fact under any circumstances, and if they do you should be able to opt out and get your money back. I could easily imagine nefarious schemes to really screw consumers using these tactics.
2. Gator (I know, not M$) installing software without the users knowledge. The media companies are suing Gator (as they should), but consumers should as well because 99.9% of them don't even know they are opt-ing in to anything.
3. Security and liability. Somewhere down the line, security holes in M$ software started costing consumers and companies millions, perhaps billions. The developers of said software should bear some legal responsibility to make secure code. If they don't then there is no incentive for M$ to even fix the bugs in a timely manner.
4. Monopolistic practices hurt the consumer. Software bundling and misleading statements are akin to practices made by the tobacco industry 20 years ago. By hurting the consumer, the consumer should have a legal right to recoup costs due to said illegal activities.
I can't believe in a world where McD's pays millions for coffee spills, juries award millions for defective products and lawyers litter the streets like sharks that we cannot find a legal loop hole to win some of these cases....
-Sean
Umm, don't use WMP. (Score:2)
There are a ton of other softwares to run movies on the M$ operating system.
Just look for them if BSplayer doesn't fit your needs.
Re:Umm, don't use WMP. (Score:2, Informative)
You can't "just say no."
Even if you decide not to use WMP, it's still installed on your system (if you're using 98, 2000, XP); which means that you're still bound by the EULA (the one that was in place when you last installed your OS or updated WMP).
Things Microsoft might do under this EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the stuff the RIAA has been asking Congress for, but Congress hasn't gone along with it. Now it's coming in through the back door.
And notice that this system includes a back door, through which Microsoft can secretly install new software that takes away functions or spies on you.
Crap, I just installed this last night (Score:2)
But they can't install DRM software without my knowledge, can they? Or does MediaPlayer now contain stealthware?
"Hey Ick, you were just kidding about it exploding, right?
Media Player is crap. (Score:2)
Just finished de-lousing the PC at home (Score:2)
Some day it will be POOF and no more Windows
This kind of crap should be illegal (Score:2)
Its like making a contract, where in very fine print at the bottom it says, "You agree that you will become a slave."
What's next, are they going to put in clauses saying that you agree that they may place virus' on your computer?
but is it for all versions? (Score:2)
I though MP was up to 7.1 now.
Besides, this [microsoft.com] is much scarier.
Mix with legalization of attacks on P2P networks (Score:2)
I wonder if the EULA lets them use you as a node in a concerted attack on p2p networks that "break" DRM.
Anybody have the full EULA?
Not only that.... (Score:2)
I quote CmdrTaco when I say... (Score:2)
"If you disagree with me, don't read. I don't mind!"
If you don't like the software, don't download it. Bill Gates doesn't mind.
been that way for a while (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried to explain to her that Bill Gates thought she was stealing music. I'm not sure it took though; I think she secretly thought we weren't letting her play it. Yeah, we'll back up a gig of music on the tape, spend the time restoring them and then not let you play them. She eventually just said she'd bring the cd's in again.
There may have been a way around all this, but for such an obvious non work related thing, wasn't going to do it. Didn't feel like installing winamp because she'd been so annoying and whiny about the whole thing.
How to take a stand and have it count (Score:5, Interesting)
So instead, you will just have to stop using Microsoft software. People bitch and moan and gripe but at the end of the day they sit down and load up Windows.
Well, if you really want an effective protest, you are going to have to change. There are some options and they are not as bad as they seem once you adjust!
First off, there is Linux.
Pros: Keep old hardware, plenty of free software available, WINE may let you play some Windows only games, large community of geeks who will likely help you for free if you get into trouble (a million places to go for "support"). EULA, if any, is not the work of the devil.
Cons: Limited number of games, some only available through WINE, need to learn UNIX (big curve for some people), some hardware may not work right or at all, ease of use is not all there yet. No office but there are alternatives which are getting better by the month.
There is also the Macintosh:
Pros: Extremely easy to use, rock solid OS which matches or exceeds the windows experience when it comes to user interface, cd burning from the desktop and overall user experience. Plug and play far superior to Windows and Linux. Good and rapidly growing supply of games and other software. OS is based on open source software (NetBSD) and Linux/UNIX software can and is being ported over (you can even replace your UI with Gnome or KDE if you wish!). Microsoft office is available as well as the open source alternatives ported to Mac OS X. Large fanatic user base who will often help out other Mac users in distress for free.
Cons: Not as many games/software choices as Windows, though this has improved imensely in the last 4 years. EULA may be the work of the devil, check Steve Job's receding hairline to see if horns are exposed. Mac OS X still a young OS and there will be bumps in the road. Last but not least, you will need a new computer and the hardware is a bit more expensive though this is made up for quality and an average usable lifetime of 4 years compared to 2 for a PC.
So you may have to make some sacrifices and changes, but you can give M$ the finger and still have a usable computing solution in your home or office.
Buy console for games, computers for work. (Score:3, Insightful)
You say the cons for Linux and Macs are that they don't have many games. However, why not just buy gaming consoles for play. There are at least two non-Microsoft competitors in that market--Sony and Nintendo. Maybe some of you have reasons not to like them (they seem to be obsessed with copy protection too), but I think they are much better alternatives to MS. As an extra bonus, you don't have to mess with hardware configurations and stupid compatiblity problems, or wait for long boots...
...and yes there are games that are computer only, however it seems to me that recently all the good games are on console anyway, and the computer game section of stores are almost dead. I mean last time I looked, The Sims was the most exciting game there! Lame.
Logical Fallacy (Score:4, Funny)
So obviously it's not possible to have your machine secure, because it won't be if you give MS free reign on your machine.
On patch, EULA doesn't display (Score:4, Interesting)
Patching a number of systems at the office (my desktop's Debian GNU/Linux, but others suffer...), I noticed that the EULA dialog (digression #2: HTF is someone supposed to be able to read the text in a dialog that shows ~8 lines x 20 columns?) didn't present the EULA by the time I'd clicked the "Accept" button. This several times. And though we're running some older systems, this included a set of newer 1 GHz+ boxen.
What's the legal status of a contract which disappears "on approval" before it's been read?
Hold on... What about auto-update? (Score:3, Insightful)
Another big win for Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Mission (Score:4, Insightful)
Then publish this information on every website possible and allow everybody to update their firewalls blocking any sort of access to these places. And MAYBE send the information to Linksys so they can put a option in their "DSL/Cable Router" to block any sort of access to it.
Linksys may be able to increase sales by advertising just this feature to the average consumer.
Ok, so what. (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing the Point (Score:4, Insightful)
All of you people talking about removing/subverting/ignoring/legally challenging/etc. the EULA are ignoring an important fact.
It doesn't *matter* if you legally accept the terms of the EULA or not, since those terms merely spell out *how the software will operate anyway*.
Say there is a magic "Get out of EULA Free" card that came with your Microsoft Monopoly game.
Say you use it.
That's not going to stop the software from disabling other software on your machine, interfering with its operation in a supposed attempt to ensure "Digital Rights" are observed, or installing other components into your OS automatically, without asking you for permission.
The software *doesn't know from EULA*.
In other words, you can debate the legality all you want, but that's not going to change how the code operates, once it has been installed on your machine.
-- Terry
There are conflicting versions of the EULA!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
What the hell? I thought the BSD article was a troll, but to be sure I checked out his links and sure enough, THAT version of the patch [microsoft.com] contains the paragraph about DRM etc...
Well now we have two versions of the same EULA with conflicting conditions, both of which are posted in VERY public places! Now I'm no expert on contract law, but with two publicly posted conflicting versions, as far as I'm concerned, we can safely ignore both! Way to go Bill!
Use GDIVX and Tiny Personal Firewall 3 (Score:5, Informative)
GDIVX [divxity.com] runs on XP etc and is better (in my opinion) than the Media Player. There are heaps of players out there.
There is a nice program out there for Windows users called Tiny Personal Firewall [tinysoftware.com]. This wonderful little program is not just a firewall
It has default restrictions available and it sets itself up for standard windows programs like Office, IE, etc.
The cool part: When you install a new program TPF3 not only asks you if you want the program to execute, it also asks you what level of execution to grant. For example: Internet explorer (by default) can ONLY download into the c:\download directory.
So... if I'm on a box with XP I install TPF3 and nothing gets by it. Is your Media player trying to contact the Internet? block it! Is your media player trying to install something? Block it! Easy as that. Give it a go.
Re:Use GDIVX and Tiny Personal Firewall 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Fishy, isn't it?
Can you still talk about a free market if those kind of eulas are legal?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Most companies' idea of DRM limits you as to where you can put your music. And that measn not allowing it go go on a device that doesn't support the right flavor if DRM, if it supports it at all.
So, example scenarios:
You buy a $500 MP3 player device. It works great for a while hooked up to your Windows box. MS kicks on DRM one day, and you can't upload music to it anymore. It might be your rightfully-owned music, mind you... you could have ripped them all yourself from your own CDs.
Microsoft decides that MP3 files can't properly support DRM like WMA files can. So, they turn off the ability to play MP3, or maybe they delete them, or convert them to WMA. Since your portable player doesn't support WMA, you're screwed. Oh, and MS just happens to benefit financially since they control the WMA format, codecs, etc...
Maybe they do something really silly like force you to put the physical music CD in your drive whenever you want to play a digital song that was ripped from that album. Sounds stupid, I know, but what was the last game you played on CD that didn't require the disk in the drive to run?
The basic problem is that someone else's idea of what is reasonable to do with digital music will rarely match up with mine. I want to take a CD I bought, and pretty much use the music on any device I have that can play music. The problem is, of course, that the ability to do so also gives me the ability to share music on Kazaa if I choose.
I'm not neccessarily trying to argue that sharing music is legal or right (though I do believe the music companies are idiots for their handling of the situation.) I'm just saying that if I'm to retain my ability to play my music on any device that I want, I will also retain my ability to share it, that's just how it works.
Fortunatly, the cat is well out of the bag, and it's just not possible from a technical standpoint to prevent someone who can code and build their own machines from doing so. There are just too many MP3, Ogg, whatever players out there, and too many free OSes to stop it.
They would have to make it illegal to have hardware that would cooperate with the software of your choice. They would have to make it illegal to reverse-engineer systems in the privacy of my own home for my own use. They would have to make it illegal to attempt to bypass copy protection mechanisms, or even discuss it. They would have to give the copyright holders what amounts to police powers to show up at any time, and demand to see your license documentation under penalty of decades in prison.
Oh, wait...
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is well [slashdot.org] on their way [slashdot.org] to making hardware do this by itself. Then, all they have to do is invest a little more in America (ie: buy a few more Congressmen) and, voila, every computer in America has one of these suckers. Goodbye Linux. Goodbye ability to do whatever you want with your own music.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Which is otherwise known as "confusing YOUR problem with MY problem."
Go away, Ms. Rosen.
Re:So I guesss any non-MS software is out. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two questions (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a start
Funny (Score:2)
That's the whole point of this thread, that this kind of shit is being force-fed to us, and our "elected" representatives are just smiling and nodding.
not Funny, but Fundamental (Score:2)
-jhp
Re:This has got to stop (Score:2, Interesting)