1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Microsoft adds anti-piracy terms to EULA

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 14 Aug 2015.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,837
    Likes Received:
    2,044
  2. V3ctor

    V3ctor Tech addict...

    Joined:
    10 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    583
    Likes Received:
    2
    So... I buy a licence... and I can't put whatever I want in my computer?
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    335
    Does this apply to Windows?

    The only reason I ask is because I've been told that as Windows is not named in the "services listed here" section that it doesn't apply to Windows, that's not to say it doesn't apply to almost everything else like Cortana, OneDrive, Skype and other stuff that's all included with Windows 10, it's just that the EULA seems a little ambiguous when it comes to Windows.
     
  4. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,837
    Likes Received:
    2,044
    Windows itself is not a 'service' (yet), which is why it's not listed under the Microsoft Services List. However, various Windows services are listed - and as these are bundled in with Windows 10 the Services Agreement de facto covers Windows as well. Basically, Microsoft could disable a hooky copy of Office using an update to Cortana - or even, I note, the 'Default Homepage and New Tab Page on Microsoft Edge' - and be in the clear.

    Plus, 'Microsoft account' is one of the listed services, and while it's possible to use Windows 10 without a Microsoft account, it's heavily geared towards convincing you otherwise.
     
  5. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    335
    Thanks for clarifying that Mr H :thumb:

    And to think I initially dismissed claims that Microsoft could prevent people from using what they consider to be counterfeit software or unauthorized hardware, it's sad to see Microsoft heading down the route of potentially not allowing people to run what they want on their own PC.

    EDIT: Not that I needed confirmation but I though i would read the actual Windows 10 EULA, in it they state that you're bound by the linked terms contained within, those links being the Windows 10 Privacy Statement and Microsoft Services Agreement that's linked in the article so I'm guessing legally the Microsoft Services Agreement does apply to Windows even though it's not specifically named in it.
     
    Last edited: 14 Aug 2015
  6. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Counterfeit software has become a industry wide problem. My guess is the only thing they will be after is stuff that Microsoft publishers. Microsoft Office for example.

    Unauthorised hardware could be more problematic. What it classes as unauthorised would be nice to know.
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    335
    I'm not doubting that counterfeit software is a problem but isn't it a bit worrying that Microsoft is going to dictate what is or is not counterfeit, it's not like perfectly legitimate software has never been identified as counterfeit in the past or anything.
     
  8. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    Maybe I am being naive but what is the problem and what is the potential worst case scenario?

    Unless someone explains it further it seems that people are complaining because Microsoft are able and willing to deactivated pirated versions of it's software/services...
     
  9. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    No, I think it's a bit more than that. I don't have any pirated software on my PC, so I'm not particularly bothered about that aspect of things - but I really don't like the idea that they can give themselves permission to routinely scan my entire PC for things that aren't to do with Windows, or Microsoft in general.

    I know government agencies, hackers and the like can do it, but at least when they do it it's illegal - Microsoft seem to be saying: "If you use our system, we do what we want".

    I think we're entitled to a little privacy from private corporations...
     
  10. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,411
    Likes Received:
    335
    Well based on section 7 of the MSA I would say the worst case scenario could be that they've given themselves carte blanche powers to remove/block any software they want, along with blocking the use of any hardware they want.

    The article only mentions Section 7(b) but Section 7(c) states the following..
    Not sure how you or others want to interpret the Third-Party Apps and Services part. :confused:
     
  11. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    145
    I'm sure it will be sold as a service to corporations. Pay us money and we will deactivate pirated copies of your software.
     
  12. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    145
    I'm more or less the same except I mainly use my pc for gaming rather than for pro work.
     
  13. somidiot

    somidiot Member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    115
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think the other thing along with those issues is false positives. What happens if you're merrily working on a project and Windows suddenly says "Nope, you can't use that software anymore because of 'X' reason."? You're screwed until you can get on the horn with MS (No easy feat) and get it worked out. Even legitimate software isn't safe with that possibility.
     
  14. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    OK, from I can gather from the comments so far is that people are letting their imaginations run wild with accusations of what might be possible and using worst case and also illegal scenarios to justify their outrage. Arguments such as:

    Microsoft wasn't even allowed to install their own browser in Windows without having to force advertise their competitors. At what point do you think they will be allowed to act as those accusations against Microsoft claim?

    Also, arguments of privacy also remind me of a possible scenario in retail where you go to buy a product and pay with fake money and then claim privacy infringement when the retailer wants to scan the money to make sure it is genuine.

    At the end of the day Windows is Microsoft's software and they should have the right and the ability to protect it and any other software installed within it. Don't get me wrong, I am not totally naive or stupid but so far the arguments against this seem to be rather blown out of proportion with little or no actual evidence of any wrong doing to even accuse Microsoft of.

    I am also of the opinion that your privacy is not a Carte Blanche to act illegally without consequence. The legality of actions are not in dispute, the only dispute is that of guilt and whether an individual or group committed said illegal action, or are people of the opinion that actions are only judged illegal if they are caught? I get that is one for the philosophers amongst us.
     
  15. Mr Evil

    Mr Evil Member

    Joined:
    17 Apr 2015
    Posts:
    33
    Likes Received:
    1
    No! Once I have paid for it, it's my software.

    This reminds me of the driver signing requirement enforced in Windows since Vista. Officially it's to prevent malware, but in practice it locks out anyone who can't afford or is unwilling to pay for a certificate.
     
  16. RichCreedy

    RichCreedy Hey What Who

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    172
    Nope you own a limited right to use the software as agreed by the software license you have paid for
     
  17. Mr Evil

    Mr Evil Member

    Joined:
    17 Apr 2015
    Posts:
    33
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thhat's what they would like everyone to think, but they have to sue to get their way, and they don't always win, given how unreasonable most EULAs are. You shouldn't let them get away with it any more than we would accept car companies dictating which roads we are allowed to drive on.
     
  18. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    First, are they scanning your entire hard disk? It seems to me that they are scanning software that is installed through/within Windows and that is a very different thing.

    Second, where did I state or even suggest that using TOR or torrent clients are illegal? It was you who brought up and suggested without foundation (as far as I can tell) that Microsoft will discriminate against such software.
    To my understanding Microsoft has only mentioned counterfeit (illegal) or unauthorised (illegal) software/hardware. If TOR or torrent clients are classed as legal software then they will have no reason to affect them. If they are in future deemed illegal then that one is for the lawyers to sort out as Microsoft doesn't make the laws.

    This is spot on, regardless of whether we agree with it in practice or not.

    Your analogy is in error to my understanding. It is not the manufacturer deciding where you can or can't drive, that is for the Highways Department of the government to decide. More correctly, it would be if the car companies design and build cars that only let you drive on legal routes and within the legal speed limits.
    Honestly, with today's GPS technology and auto-drive vehicles being tested do you not think that this is coming in the future?
     
  19. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    Well of course people are only discussing what might be possible - this is a new issue being brought in and nothing has happened yet. Everything is hypothetical at this moment, any consequences that may be malign, and any notion that it may all be benign as well.

    Also, what upsets people is that the thing is, like so many things, worded in a purposely vague and open-ended way as give them almost limitless scope. No, an all-encompassing EULA may not stand up in court, but how many private individuals take multi-billion pound corporations to court?

    If they don't want people to assume the worst, they should stop acting like they mean the worst, ie: Be specific about what they will do.

    I personally am not outraged, I'm just irritated that, once again, a private company seems to want to exert its power and influence beyond what I see as reasonable justification.

    If Microsoft want to scan my PC (when I update) to see that my Microsoft software is legit, fair enough, but anything else is none of their damn business and I believe I'm entitled to some privacy.

    Routinely scanning PC's to check that all software and hardware on them (that is and is not theirs) is legitimate seems to be implying a presumption of guilt on the users part. Well, by law, I am entitled to be presumed innocent in this country - and I simply resent the idea of constant, pervasive intrusion as a matter of principal. You may think that's a stupid principal, fair enough, but I don't.

    Now come on, that's a silly analogy for a number of reasons - not least of which is the fact that you have willingly handed the money over.

    I think a more accurate analogy would be that you rent a house off someone, and every week while you're at work the owners come round, let themselves in, and then rifle through all your drawers and cupboards to make sure you're not up to anything illegal.

    Yes, they may have told you they were going to do this in their vaguely worded, 500 page lease agreement, but let's be honest, most people won't have read it - won't have fully understood it if they did read it - and if the landlord happens to be the only significant landlord in town, you wouldn't have had a great deal of choice anyway.

    Again, they would find nothing in my house, but I'd be bloody offended as a matter of principal.

    Like I said before, I have no problem Microsoft checking their own software to make sure it's legitimate, of course they have that right, but the rest of my PC is my own personal property, none of their business and entirely out of their jurisdiction.

    Microsoft are attempting to give themselves the power to act as judge, jury and executioner to all software and hardware related issues (which they decide are their business) to well over a billion people in pretty much every country on the planet.

    I appreciate you may not care about that, but I believe it to be fundamentally wrong.
     
  20. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    And there in lays the crux of your problem as it is being determined that installing counterfeit software or using unauthorised hardware is indeed breaking 'the general law'.


    Again I believe a radical situation is being created for argument's sake. This isn't about a system working or being correctly implemented, this is about whether it is correct to have that system in place at all.

    I understand your arguments and I agree to some extent but not entirely and especially not with the analogies.

    Counterfeit software is installed in to Windows and runs within that system, not independently. Microsoft is not claiming to search your private files either (the equivalent of them going through your draws).

    To use that analogy (which I too was thinking of using) is to have the owners or even estate agents (third parties working on Microsoft's behalf) to periodically come round your house to make sure you haven't tampered with the water/gas/electric meters, which as it happens is checked all the time in the real world by the relevant authorities, or maybe that is an invasion of your privacy too?

    If your software needs Windows to run, it is not 'out of their jurisdiction'.

    To have the power and to be the executioner... Yes, I agree, but the judge and jury? No, that is where I disagree. Again as far as I have read Microsoft have not once declared that they will decide what is or is not authorised, only that they will have the ability to act once something has been declared unauthorised.

    As for the second part of that comment, it seems you are justifying your displeasure by sheer numbers rather than on principle. It shouldn't matter whether it is one system or global, so I find that part irrelevant.
     

Share This Page