Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Media Player "Security Patch" Changes EULA Big Time

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.

5 of 640 comments (clear)

  1. extortion by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can it be that they can change the EULA in order to disseminate a security patch? Isn't this essentially extortion? If I disagree with the EULA, and someone exploits the security hole the patch was designed to fix, can Microsoft be held liable?

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  2. Re:Hmm by ryanr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    mmm...Troll food. I'll answer anyway.

    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...

  3. Re:Hmm by carambola5 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They would have to make it illegal to have hardware that would cooperate with the software of your choice.


    Microsoft is well on their way 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.

    --
    IWARS.
    People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
  4. Re:Legality of EULA by sjames · · 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.

  5. Forget the EULA, watch for the *next* patch by schmaltz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This EULA's a precurser to M$ actually installing DRM and anti-anti-DRM software on your computer as part of the next security patch.

    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?