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.
Sometimes, the Bill/Borg pic says it all.
The tradeoff is just who is peeking at your activities? Wow microsoft is briliant... I need to get red hat up again.. *grumbels*
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.
I remember some weeks back that someone had posted a script pointing to an auto-EULA remover for microsoft installers. Can that person please post their link again?
How many people are going to completely duck the patch, and choose alternate ways to secure their WMP machine? (ie. Take your WMP machine off the network; Just don't use WMP anymore; etc....)
What's your solution?
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
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. I maintain a web site that basically sells access to TIFF imaged documents. All of a sudden we had about a hundred pissed off customers (some not wanting to pay their bill) because _WE_ broke access to the information that runs their businesses. As each customer ran windows update, our website broke. Of course they all say they have not installed any new software, which makes it all the more difficult to troubleshoot until the problem was figured out.
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
Soccer Goal Plans
Changing the rules after a puchase has got to stop. Plus invasive 'i reserve the right to mess with YOUR device' crap, regardess of inital agreement...
Unless im leasing something its MINE..
And no i dont care if its Microsoft or Sony or anyone else.. noone should have this 'right'. Noone.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I routinely fail to read Microsoft EULAs on the grounds that all but the most obvious provisions of such a licence are, at least, challengable under the normal provisions of English Law. (No, I'm not a lawyer, do your own checks).
A EULA can quite reasonably restrict me from abuses such as reselling the software or copying it onto 5000 systems but, if I want to use a video viewer, only a lawyer can think that I should be obliged to give the author unrestricted rights to my machine in exchange.
Worried about EULA's do what everyone else does. Ignore the EULA then if you get caught thats when you squeal like a stuck pig.
No sense fighting a giant before your a victim.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Basically, if you get this upgrade, you might as well ship your computer to Redmond because they are in control of your computer. And it's not like this hasn't happened before.
Other EULA Problems:
Dont insult M$ if you use front page:
Front Page Free Speech Restrictions and
Free Speech Restrictions Part II
Just Don't Use XP:
Read the fine print
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Nobody forces you to use WMP.
:D
Just use a different media player.
BlazeMediaPro, Winamp, more, take your pick.
oh and yeah, add microsoft.com to your hosts file
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
I wonder if MS releases these exploits on purpose, in order to include a new, updated, restrictive, controlling EULA? Since they are the ones who see the source, they could make this easy. How else could all off their software have such silly exploits, and usually bundled with a pathetic EULA - the user must accept it, or get hacked.
Gee, I'm really in shock right now. Just another effort on Microsoft's part to have complete control over your computer.
I'm not that familiar with Windows Media Player licenses, but the line about security upgrades might well be present in previous versions. It doesn't seem to be in the license for the mac client (7.3)
Billy-Borg is gonna buy out the RIAA thereby increasing his legions of Billy-Bitches tenfold. How diabolical of him.
2) Is there a decent, free alternative for Windoze that people here would recommend for video files?
It's just to win points with DRM advocates. It's an underhanded means of controlling its "users" from the perspective of the DRM folks. I would be interested to know if there's been some discussion between MS and the DRM folks to ensure/track this sort of thing.
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.
XP and Microsoft's moves from customers owning their software (such as that "ownership" was anyway) to only renting it might have been the turning point where I work. My boss recently had us change his laptop from Win98-only to dual-boot Linux as well. A new "computerization" initiative for the production line will use Java-based apps running on *gasp* currently moth-balled X-terminals!
With this kind of... extortion (the DRM crap included in a security update, fer Christ's sake), I'm of the opinion that MS is only driving another nail in its own coffin.
If you're in a large company, contact your legal department immediately. That's a serious issue, because it gives Microsoft the unlimited right to destroy any software on your machine. That's not something the individual employee is authorized to agree to.
Good thing that Winamp3 is coming out, and it has video support. Not as good as WMP yet, but at least it's Winamp! They've also got support for something called Nullsoft Streaming Video... possibly a bid to enter the Real/WMP/Quicktime battle (if you can even call it that)? Maybe it has something to do with AOL's new toy.
Kinda like a car manufacturer realizing there's something wrong with the seatbelts in a certain model and only offering replacements to those who agree to never buy another brand car.(I know the analogy is a bit flawed in the sense that it is too extreme, but still there's some validity in it)
I'm on a mac, which has terrible WMP support anyway, and yet I still run an old old old version. Why? When I went to update, the installer started to index my entire hard drive without asking. With the reputation Microsoft has, I quickly deleted it.
What a great way to force people into a legal agreement. So much for trusting Microsoft, eh? Could this be concidered blackmail?
Furthermore, what if you block the update? Or what if you duel-boot - is it copyright circumvention to have the software installed on your computer if you don't accept an update?
I wonder how long until CDs and DVDs come with EULAs requiring you to run certain software that disables and blocks anything which might pose a threat.
Whether or not you agree to the EULA, the MS disabling and what-not still takes place - you just didn't "agree" to it. In order for this to have any benefit whatsoever you'd need to actually sue them, and considerring that you'd have to admit to circumventing the EULA in the process, and the simply fact that you'd be going up against MS lawyers, this wouldn't do any good either.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
I like to make MP3 copies of my original CD's and burn them to a MP3 CD so I can play them with my portable MP3 CD player and have access to my complete (300+) CD collection at all times, anywhere I am, because it all fits in my 50 CD wallet?
that reading Slashdot would avoid me so many problems. I noticed a poster talking about the DRM on the other article, so I choosed not to install it. But I wonder, now what? Will that patch be required to patch something else? Will some new software install it automatically? And does reinstalling Windows take back the EULA changes?
These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer.
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.
"In my values, freedom is more important than 'serving users' in a mere practical sense." -- RMS
I tend to skim most EULA's, but when it's from Microsoft, I read the whole thing word for word. I don't believe that I've seen anything quite like this, so I doubt it applies to WMP for X. If it does... well, it WAS a better program than RealPlayer.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
One of these days they will go too far.
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.
...
...by not using WMP, or windows. I know it's redundant, but MP3 is still the standard for audio files, and RealPlayer and Quicktime have good shares of the video content. I don't lose access to much by not having WMP on my system, and I don't have to bend over in front of m$. My friend had a whole slew of WMA files, and after reformatting and changing his hardware configuration, WMP detected that he was playing those files on a different system, and won't let him listen to that music. Blech.
So if you want your machine secure, you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC.
...not ...run ...windows.
Y'know, there is a way to have a secure machine without Microsoft having 'free reign' over your PC, and that is to...
Ever crossed your mind?
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
I actually mentioned something like this but I didn't think they'd actually be that sleazy for real!
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
forget windows media player, its features suck, it it has next to no plugins, for music use winamp 2.x it has cooler visualisations anyway and for video nullsoft just released a new version of winamp3, winamp is the superior media player and its FREE, suck on that bill
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
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....
:-)
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Not that I ever use my Win2K partition, but at this point, I'd rather give the script kiddies a chance"to (access)the user's system with the ability to add, change or delete data and perform other functions" than let M$ have the same access(with far more insidious motives, I'm sure.)
"Equal bytes for women!"
People are going to say that this is such a bad thing. But really, it's just an extended interpretation of what was always in the license. Software companies have been telling us for decades that we don't own the software we buy, and we've let them. And it doesn't matter that to now they haven't done much with that stipulation (except make it hard/impossible to sell a used computer with software) but they could have at any time. So now, Microsoft is
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.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
(WANL == We are not lawyers)
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
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.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
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...
The EULA changes will be applied to everything you get from them, even the 'auto' patches via XP.
Soooo. just saying no to WMP wont get you far.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No M$'s theme song is that stupid windows startup sound.
When translated from Billish to English is says
"Welcome to Bills PC, Resistance is Futile"
Medevo
You know, Microsoft has it tough on so many fronts. They own a huge percentage of the operating system market share for PCs, that's known. In turn that makes them responsible for many things, of which I'll mention a couple. Security of the operating system for the user, and making sure the operating system itself doesn't become a tool for digital rights violations.
So a vulnerability is found in the operating system or one of its components. Immediately they're getting slammed in the media and forums like they're the only software developer who's ever written code that's exploitable or buggy. They're not, they're just somehow a hell of a lot more responsible for these kinds of issues than other products with substantially lower user bases. In an ideal world, all security issues would get the same media exposure as MS ones do, but hey we don't live in that ideal world.
There's also the issue of digital rights management. You just KNOW they're getting an earful from the RIAA and/or other similar organizations about how it's so easy for users to pirate music and other media on the Windows platform, and since it's got such a huge user base it's going to get asked to do something about it. What are they supposed to do? Say no, and risk legal issues with the RIAA? If they fight against the man, they lose face again in the media because the corporate world works for the man. And in case nobody noticed, Microsoft is a company, and companies are out to make money and market share. Looking bad in the eyes of the world media is a bad thing for them, so they have to pick the lesser of two evils.
I'm not agreeing with the new EULA, I think that security updates are best kept in the realm of email or program notifications requiring user intervention, not automagical downloads and installations. Not to MENTION crippling of programs I may be using to *gasp* pirate music. That's entirely wrong, but for some reason they thought this was the best decision. It doesn't mean I have to install the update or run Windows Media Player (or Windows for that matter). I did, I do (and I do), but that's besides the point. I just think that people should consider what might be things Microsoft has to deal with behind the scenes that made them make these kinds of decisions.
Just as an aside, I'm no Microsoft drone or anything. And really I'm not sure this post has a point, but it's my rant nonetheless. :)
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Soon as the Anti-Trust trial is over, then they won't have that CPU hog player forced upon them.
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
/. should replace the Joystick pic a John Carmack Borg...
It's only a matter of time really
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?
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.
This space left intentionally blank.
Um, technically if you run an MSFT OS then MSFT *does* have complete control over your PC. It just lets you click on things and make noises. There is no technical reason why MS couldn't "own" your computer even back in the MS-DOS days.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
That's just a kick ass idea! Thanks for sharing! I don't think anyone else has ever thought of doing that! ;)
Well, the most obvious problem with the way the EULA is worded. It means that if I use any other program to listen to music or watch movies and it doesn't have MS's security installed on it, then they have the right to delete the program.
Way to go Bill, you figured out how to totally kill Real, Winamp and any other Non-MS media player.
~ kjrose
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 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. 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 do that PNG doesn't?
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
DOH!!
...Ick?"
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?
I wonder how MS is going to install / uninstall software on the PC. Will there be any notification? Will there be some sort of reporting to HQ that I'm attempting to circumvent DRM? And more importantly, will my personal firewall allow me to block this? I can't wait for the hack for this.
new "Software Update Server" MS just released.
It installs patches over the network and doesn't require the user to click any EULA.
The creator of a product has the moral right to offer his product under whatever terms he wishes. If a potential consumer of that product decides that he does not like those terms, he is free to choose not to use the product in question.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
What with their inane system restore function, and the worse SystemFileProtection crap, the windows media player is consider a system file ?!?! After minutes of cursing I found an article by a helpful hacker who advised killing the statemgr and poof no more Media player :)
:)
Some day it will be POOF and no more Windows
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Auto Update? I decide what patches I want. I choose patches that fix security holes, which I make sure if they could be problems, and install bugfixes that I choose. Just turn off auto-update.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
Media Player has absolutely no authority to play any media files on my machine unless it is absolutely necessary such as in the case of proprietary MS files (which I don't use anyway). All video and audio formats are associated with third-party software (try Media Jukebox 8.0, it's pretty nice).
So my question is, if Mplayer supposedly has free reign to disable other software programs that circumvent copy protection, how the hell is it going to do that if it never gets used? All it is doing at this point is taking up drive space. Perhaps MS will one day allow users the options of easily uninstalling it. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go have passionate sex with several supermodels on a bed of $100 bills.
Make any downloads from the microsoft site forced to ask permission before downloading begins (you should be able to do this by changing your browsers security settings). Perhaps someone might download it, check to see if it disables/destroys anything, and release info about it (perhaps even "hack it" to remove the "destructive" part of the code, although that might be illegal).
You mean, for example, that I should be able to watch my DVD of Das Boot on my Linux box without it being a federal crime?
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.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Any contract like this should be illegal and void.
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?
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Soon, MS will just have this line in the EULA
"All your programs are belong to us" period
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
"FYI my patch is for Media Player 6.4 on Windows NT 4.0."
I though MP was up to 7.1 now.
Besides, this is much scarier.
If MS did not make it clear up front that there was such differences in the product, including the EULA, than they need to provide a way to undo the installation of the patch.
Otherwise they are practicing "Consumer Entrapment Abuse".
  At risk of sounding like a Microsoft supporter (actually, this statement doesn't really support microsoft but on /. any statement not bashing microsoft is concidered support), I don't quite understand what Mr. Gates is doing. Here he is, in charge of a major coperation which provides software to numerous businesses and private citizens and he isn't taking the best interest of the customers he relies on but the other major coperations. In my mind it seems like if microsoft took a stance where they wanted to protect the customer from big business insted of subject a user to it, the popularity of Microsoft would jump enormously. You would be suprized how many people are really indifferent / skeptical about Microsoft and a simple marketing change or "company direction" if you will, could change their entire public outlook. Not only that, but if they sharpened up their immage a little, they could also use that as dammage control for their anti-trust lawsuit. "Excuse me your honor, but I don't see how you could make a decision that we are taking away from our customers when we sit there and protect them from other big business..."
  Then again, this is Microsoft were are talking about here. They seem to have a plan for pretty much everything, so this could very well be another way or something else to bring them to the next level of their domination control. Anyways...
eh, food for thought...
I use the TIFF reader at http://www.alternatiff.com/ recommended by the Patent Office. It does require registration, but it's free, and it avoids the Quicktime plugin and it produces high quality images.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
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?
I wonder how far they'd push the term 'software'. A lot of people out there have Linux or similar systems on a machine alongside Windows. Microsoft would love nothing more than to remove it because 'It encourages piracy' or 'bypasses our Media Player security features'.
I bet the first thing they'd remove are the DivX codecs.
If I buy a robot to play my cds and the robot as the propriety to check if the cd is "legal" or not and then call the cops seems almost fair. But if the robot start a killing rampange on my not so "legal" cds isn't that a clear violation of your right? And that isn't what MS is trying here?
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
A company piggybacks unwanted code on a download.
The unwanted code changes the user's experience.
The unwanted code also actively trashes other software on the box (KaZaa had downloads that disabled AdAware).
In some respects, Microsoft's is even worse. KaZaa is at least a descretionary download - your computer wll be fine without it. Microsoft is piggybacking on a security fix - don't patch it, and you leave yourself open to hackers. Ironically, the hole is caused by DRM.
Gee, like Bill Gates says, good thing you don't have any of that open source where they don't have to listen to what you want.
But the security patch trashed a friend of Mine's computer. Internet Explorer 6 began crashing every 30 seconds until I told him how to use system restore to restore his computer to the point before he installed the patch. Now it's fine again....
Of course, if you don't install the patch, they'll just hack into your computer and install drm anyway.
They just want to make sure you paid for it.
Which is otherwise known as "confusing YOUR problem with MY problem."
Go away, Ms. Rosen.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
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.
"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.
" you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC"
free reign on windows. i still dispute microsoft own their product.
still, these sorts of changes shouldnt be so hidden away. it may be bad marketing, but it wont shift many(if any) people away from windows
I am Locutus of Bill, surrender your corporate Enterprise to us...
Tibbon
tibbon.com
While he regards the OS as 'his', he understands that really it's just 'licensed' to him by MS. 'Semantics', he thinks, as a license is a form of contract which cannot be changed by either party without the consent of both parties, so whatever. It doesn't occur to him that when he downloads that security patch and just automatically clicks on 'OK' in order to proceed with the install, that he might be agreeing to something, in fact he doesn't even bother to read the gobbledy-gook text of the EULA (end user license agreement) presented by the installer. Perhaps he would have found the EULA for the latest security update for Windows Media Player interesting.
Of course, even had he read it, what would he have done? Clicked 'cancel' and left his computer vulnerable to the security hole? Each security hole discovered in Windows now is an opportunity for MS to modify the EULA and gain new concessions from the user. And because there will be more security updates in future, in order to have a secure OS, Bob will have to install the next to be secure, and the next to be secure... You see where the 'carrot on a stick' image comes from, Bob keeps plodding along after the carrot of security, never really getting it, but along the way agreeing to whatever MS wants.
Once Bob's sufficiently clued in, he may want to say to hell with MS altogether. To Bob and others like him I'd suggest Linux/Mandrake as a nice, easy to install and use, version of Linux. The commercial version comes with an MS Office replacement called StarOffice, though you can get a free version called OpenOffice which doesn't have the db support from OpenOffice.org
Personally, I think infrastructure, anything critical like operating systems, should be free, but another alternative I'd suggest in the 'lesser of two evils' category would the Mac, esp. running OS/X. Here in Canada, and I expect in the US, Apple is running some really brilliant ads featuring former Windows users as part of their campaign to get Windows users to switch. The web site for the campaign is at http://www.apple.com/switch/
Okay, we've all bitched about it. So now, what are the alternatives? I'm ignorant of generic media players other than "the" Media Player. What are the good ones that will run under Windows? There must be a way to uninstall or disable Media Player and still run Windows. I don't see it in Add/Remove Programs, but have not yet checked Windows Setup. How about hacking the registry, or a stub that replaces Media Player so you can pretend to leave it in place? These things are a bit beyond my experience. What about it, Win hackers?
Oh really? Hmm, let's say that Ford found a nasty flaw in the brakes of every Explorer on the road. To get the brake system fixed, free because they sold a flawed product, you had to agree that they will be allowed to place a monitoring device in the car, thus insuring that nothing they deem "improper" will ever happen in the vehicle. Further, they will be allowed to add "features" to this moinitor when they feel like it, and you're not legally allowed to circumvent it.
Remember, the flaw was built-in, and it is dangerous to drive without fixing it. And, to get their designed-in "oopsie" fixed, you *must* agree to their terms, which they can, and will, change at any time, and you'll automatically agree to them, too.
The courts would have a field day the first time some un-fixed vehicle crashed and killed people. What makes Micro$oft any different? I mean, besides there being a choice not to buy a Ford, but instead a GM, Toyota, Chrysler, BMW, Volvo or Subaru. At least in vehicles, consumers have viable choices. M$, however, has already been ruled a monopoly.
Lemon curry?
For what it's worth I just download and installed a patch (I'll assume there's only one at the moment) for my WindowsME version of Media Player. I skimmed through the EULA that I had to sign off on, and did not see the alleged references to DRM. Maybe they changed it, or maybe it's not in the ME update. Don't know.
--
RumorsDaily
are all TERRORIST!!!
*nix desktops grabbing a few more percentage points. I think there is a fairly large user base of people that although not tech savvy enough to already be a *nix head -- but are smart enough and well educated enough to know when someone (microsoft) is putting the screws in them and turning 1/8 of a turn every few months. Although I know that some of these people are already Mac users....But given time...anything can happen.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
So we're updating machines at work to w2k by flashing an image on to the hard drive. Being the nice people we are, we've even backed up people's music for them. When we restored one woman's music, media player refused to run until it had been updated. So I updated it, checked that it ran the little demo it comes with and left. 10 minutes later I get a call that it won't play her music. Turns out that because the music had been ripped on what it thought was another machine, it refused to play it. Never mind that the hardware was exactly the same, except for the addition of 128 megs of ram. The hd had been formatted and a new os installed (essentially) so as far as media player was concerned, the files were now on a different pc and so it wouldn't play them.
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.
The creator of a product has the moral right to offer his product under whatever terms he wishes. If a potential consumer of that product decides that he does not like those terms, he is free to choose not to use the product in question.
While, if you allow a very vague definition of "moral right", that is sort of true of products offered for sale in the marketplace and other situations where a customer is entering into a contract with a producer, it does not apply to a situation where the producer is required for safety or useability reasons to correct a deficiency in a product or service that has already been contracted for.
On the hardware side, the equivalent to MS putting this EULA on this security patch would be Ford requiring that you agree to replace all your tires with the brand they specify as part of their recall to repair defective seatbelt latches.
On the service side, it is equivalent to a paint contractor saying that they will only fix the bad job they did on the outside of your house if you agree to let them do all your interior painting, too.
It looks to me like Microsoft just wants to stay in court. This is going to guarantee that their legal department will continue to have plenty to do.
and, lol, I'd like to see a court's opinion on the degree to which this unilateral ammendment to the original licensing agreement voids the original license-- there is a distant possibility that anyone who upgrades their MS Multimedia under this provision becomes effectively immune to any charges of violation of other Microsoft EULAs.
--
iI don't care whether you can think outside of the box. Can you think outside of the cliche?
This smells so illegal... First include an application in the OS that has a security hole, a few months later act surprised that someone discovers it, firstly deny any such problem exists than finally recant and recognized the problem, build a patch a few months later but include in the attached legal document aa disclaimer for any responsibility for the patch, application(s), and OS, and that third-party applications may be disabled/removed/erased without the owner/user permission at any time. Grrr...
Kinda like buying a new car and not noticing the dealership & manufacturer deny and responsibility for any item and/or service. Then find that if the dealership and/or manufaturer doesn't like any third-party something(s) you put into/onto the car (tires, stereo, etc.) they can eject/confiscate/destroy the third-party something(s) at any time. In a few months you get some new tires from some dealer down the road and as your cruising home on the interstate at 60 the front tires are ejected. Later the court throws out the lawsuit since you violated the dealship/manufacturer EULA...
Time to buy another drive and try the various "open" OS's again....
We can go through the courts but there is no guarantee you will win. In fact, if anything, you may do the opposite, set a precident that EULA's are legally binding.
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.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
[TIFF supports] JPEG. Multiple images in one picture [...] Thumbnails [...] 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.
MNG, an extension to PNG, supports all of the above, and Mozilla supports it. (IE doesn't yet.) Let's hope that Microsoft doesn't "patch" its EULA to prohibit use of competing web browsers.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You're free to choose not to purchase an Explorer, or to stop driving it at any time.
M$, however, has already been ruled a monopoly.
I could go on forever about that. Regardless of what the courts say, Microsoft is not a monopoly, and even if it were--so what? Why should ability be punished?
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
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.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I actually understand that.
Reason. I'm too busy to keep things in order. It's so much easier to buy a CD, convert to MP3, buy DVD and convert to Divx (then trash away to some closet where it doesn't bother me) on my home server (local) and use it as organised shelf. You know, but having over 100 DVDs and over 500 CDs can be a real pain in the ass. My time is limited and my devices aren't hypotetical. Time is hypotetical, devices not. There are cases when I wath a movie or listen to cd I bought in two or three months delay. So organised server is the bes solution.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
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?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Blegh! I dont wanna upgrade -- I like my media player the way it is. If i minded getting hacked, would I be running windows?
Can't you cheat by just saying "Ok, but I do not allow you to use any of the bandwidth I payed for" to do any of this?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
You'e not a big fan of privacy are you? Does Microsoft or anybody for that matter really have the right to monitor you like this in your own home? Granted you're using their software and may violate the DMCA or whatever else, but I vcouldn't see them being held accountable for what you do with thier software. Just like cd burners and cd-burning programs and hell even copiers for that matter they wanr ou it may be possible to copy copywritten property, so don' do it. Microsoft doesn' need to take this step to comply with anything. And hell, if they go this far, what's to stop them ftom going any further? Big brother is alive and well in redmond. Glad i jumped the MS ship a while back.
That would be any company with M$ encumbered hardware. At my company, M$, Norton, and a host of other "screen saver" shiny display companies take turns in the great zero privacy gang bang of our desktops. Some of it is initiated by users, others came as default enablers, NetMeeting, IE, Outlook, MediaPlayer. Our computers are so full of spies reporting to so many masters, I sometimes wonder if Bill Gates is intersted in Solitair scores.
If you had said this two weeks ago, I'd have called you a prophet. As it is everyone is short selling everything because the "new economy", where no physical good are made and shipped to the rest of the world, is a lie. DRM is more that invasive, it's a bad bet.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I decided to use open source software as much as possible since a couple of years back. Mostly because i have trouble using Microsoft software, mainly due to the lack of quality. A thing that bothers me more and more is that some companies want to take control over MY computer. A thought that dont please me at all. Its my computer and i make the decisions about it. If a company can gain access trough a back door to alter settings and such then surely anyone else that gets their hands on the keys can too.This makes a huge security threat to all possibly sensitive data i might have on my box. No serious OS shold contain a backdoor. There arent a single legit reason for it. Hopefully there are more people that thinks as i do and maybe there will be enough people using linux/freebsd/whatever to sustain alternatives to Microsoft in the future.
HTTP/1.1 400
I just won't patch. The odds of being hacked by a random siteop through WMP are much lower than the odds of being hacked by M$ after installing this patch, as I see it.
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
Hello Canadian-imported contraband hardware. Imagine the amount of business computer hardware dealers in border cities will be able to do. Yay for our economy! (at least until they bribe enough of our MPs)
The "patch" can come on a CD too. All you have to do is buy a camera and install it's drivers. ActiveX and what_not.dll will be replaced by the DRM versions. Since I purchased an Epson Digital Elph (an excellent camera and worth every penny spent) Paint Shop Pro can no longer take scans from my Cannon flatbed scanner. Now only the M$ scanning program can. Moreover, the tiff and bmp images that scanner makes are corrupt and won't open in Paint Shop Pro or win32 GIMP or most of my Linux image manipulators. Only Electric Eyes ignores the error and is able to liberate my scans. So you see, my carefully gaurded 98 machine that never sees the net was damaged by new M$ tricks despite my caution.
M$ is evil. They wish to redifine free as "without reward."
One day, I'll understand how to work my camera and scanner without M$ help and the VFAT partition will go away.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The DRMOS Patent can be found here:
a d.html
... Because the basic DRMOS and additional components always have the same identities when executing on a specific type of processor, the content provider has only to maintain a list of the identities for the combinations of the basic DRMOS and
http://cryptome.org/ms-drm-os.htm
Reviewing the Microsoft DRMOS (Palladium Patent) it became apparent Richard Stallman's short story, The Right to Read is indeed visionary. Below are quotes from the DRMOS patent
and Stallman's Right to Read.
You must read this story:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-re
Although it has been difficult to clearly articulate to the general computer user, it should now be clear the DMCA represents not
only risk to fair use and other such issues, but represents a tool by which new technologies such as the DRMOS can be enforced.
It and other new laws (SSSCA/CBDTPA) are the legal infrustructure required to make the public use these new DRM technologies and
enforce punishment/fines when they are circumvented.
Content from MS DRMOS Patent quoted under the practice of fair use for comment and discussion purposes.
The Content Provider (ISP) must maintain a registry of "subscriber computers". This is the SPA and Central Licensing:
Therefore, the content provider would have to maintain a registry of each subscriber's DRMOS identity or delegate that function to a
trusted third party.
additional components that the provider trusts. Each identity uploaded
is then checked against the list.
Soon, changing your PC's system clock could become illegal:
This alternate embodiment requires a secure time source to be
available on the subscriber computer so the user cannot simply
turn back the system clock on the subscriber computer.
Pay-per-use operating system and components:
As described above, components may be valid only until a specified date
and time, and content may also be licensed only until a certain date and time.
The monotonic counter described earlier can also be used to ensure that the
computer's clock cannot be set backwards to allow the replacement of a
trusted component by an earlier, now untrusted version.
Stallman is right again, DEBUGGING IS NOW ILLEGAL, enforced under Section
1201 of H.R. 2281 (The DMCA):
DRMOS Patent:
An example of one kind of procedure that must be prohibited is loading a
kernel debugger because it would allow the user to make a copy of the
content loaded in memory. If the user of the subscriber computer attempts
to load a kernel debugger into memory, the DRMOS can either 1) refuse
to load the debugger, or 2) renounce its trusted identity and terminate
the trusted application that was accessing the content before loading
the debugger. In the latter case, the memory must also be purged of the
content before the debugger is loaded.
See The Right to Read, Stallman:
There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing.
They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software,
Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used
it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had
told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA
for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal).
In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing
a debugger.
Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging
tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable
over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright
monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal
use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers
were sent to prison.
You can no longer delete specific data from your hard drive:
DRMOS Patent:
For example, the DRMOS can allow the user to delete an entire content file but
not a portion of it. Another example is that the DRMOS can allow the user to
terminate all the threads of execution for a trusted application but not just
a single thread.
Again, debuggers are not permitted:
DRMOS Patent:
Finally, a DRMOS must protect the trusted application itself from tampering.
The DRMOS must not allow other processes to attach to the process executing
the trusted application. When the trusted application is loaded into memory,
the DRMOS must prevent any other process from reading from, or writing to,
the sections of memory allocated to the trusted application without the explicit
permission or cooperation of the trusted application.
Users may not share data:
DRMOS Patent:
Such a facility is used when downloaded content can be accessed only by a particular user. Moreover, if downloaded content is to be accessed only by a particular user and by a particular application, the secret to be stored may be divided into parts, with one part protected by an application-specific key and the other part protected by a user-specific key.
Applied to Stallman's Right to Read. Bear in mind these are e-books and sharing
would be a form of copyright circumvention:
He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books.
Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting
someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like
everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was
nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.
The "Key Vault" and trusted third party (Central Authority):
DRMOS Patent:
Once the data is encrypted using the storage keys, there must be a way to
recover the keys when the DRMOS identity changes (as when the operating system
is upgraded to an incompatible version or an unrelated operating system is
installed) or the computer hardware fails. In the exemplary embodiments
described here, the keys are stored off-site in a "key vault" provided by a
trusted third party. In one embodiment, the DRMOS contains the IP addresses
of the key vault providers and the user decides which to use. In another
embodiment, the content provider designates a specific key vault and the DRMOS
enforces the designation. In either embodiment, when the user requests the
restoration of the storage keys, the key vault provider must perform a certain
amount of validation before performing the download.
Your computer cannot be used to copy content:
For example, one property might be that the application cannot be used to copy content. Another example of a property is one that specifies that the application can be used to copy content, but only in analog form at 480P resolution. Yet another example of a property is one that specifies that the application can be used to copy content, but only if explicitly allowed by an accompanying license.
Looks like the MPAA has been engaged in some Retail Politics:
In one embodiment, the access predicate takes the form of a required properties
access control list (ACL) as shown in FIG. 10. The required properties ACL 1000
contains a basic trust level field 1001, which specifies the minimum rights
management functions that must be provided by any application wishing to process
the content. These minimum functions can be established by a trade association,
such as the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), or by the DRMOS
vendor.
More Pay-per-view OS functions:
As described briefly above, the license data structure 1100 can limit the number
of times the content can be accessed (usage counter 1101), determine what use
can be made of the content (derivation rights 1103), such as extracting still
shots from a video, or building an endless loop recording from an audio file,
or a time-based expiration counter 1105.
Pay-per-listen feature:
The sublicense rights 1107 can impose more restrictive rights on re-distributed
content than those specified in a license for content downloaded directly from
the original content provider. For example, the license 1100 on a song purchased
directly from the music publisher can permit a song to be freely re-played while
the sublicense rights 1107 require a limit on the number of times the same song
can be re-played when redistributed.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Those people most likely gave the "software update server" the authority to act as their agent in agreeing to whatever EULAs might apply. Thus, installing the "software update server" would be a meta-agreement to any condition MS might subsequently impose.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
If this patch was distributed through Windows Update as a critical update, and thus was auto-installed on my machine through my XP Auto-Update configuration, then it's not like I've agreed to a new EULA, right? It was automatically installed; I was never given an opportunity to disagree to a new license.
Sure, that'll work, at least until Windows file protection slaps you upside the head, and quietly "restores" the files back to the way that they were. Under XP, at least, mplayer2 and wmplayer (media player 8 and 6.4, respectively) are both under WMP's "protection."
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.
Document imaging systems use the TIFF annotation features for things like "smart" redactions (You burn the redaction into the image while keeping a copy of the unredacted portion, which is then accordingly compressed and then encrypted. That encrypted image is then stored as an annotation that can only be shown if you've got the password, etc.
There's a lot more that you can do with annotations, etc.
Suffice it to say, PNG's good, but they didn't account for document imaging in that format- TIFF did.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Using ZoneAlarm just deny wmp any access to the net, and add the content server to the Local Zone. Bit of an arse, but you may be glad...
The MNG spec is for animated images, not entire documents (although you can use it that way...). MNG is a multi-image format extention to PNG which is not geared for all the needs of document imaging.
For example, PNG combines RGBA per each pixel. TIFF allows for seperate planes of Red, Green, Blue, and Alpha as would be used by rasterization engines or would be produced by high-end scanners.
It all depends on what they're doing with the images- PNG may not fit the bill all the way around.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I have no idea how this would play in a U.S. court, but I suspect that here in Denmark I could argue that MS has shipped a faulty product - they admit it themselves by offering a fix to it - and then refusing to fix the problem - by requiring me to agree to blatantly unreasonable terms If I had been using MS stuff, I would take this up with the local consumer protection authorities (forbrugerombudsman). (Un?)fortunately I have not purhcased any MS software for the past many years, so I can not go that way. Hope someone else will.
In Murphy We Turst
has anyone realised that M$ can just say linux is "DRM circumventing" and destroy it on your PC.
this may seem a little far-fetched but even so they do seem to be running out of options
I think it just became ready.
IANAL, but until very recently, your suspicions were basically correct; company lawyers have their field day with shrink-wrap licenses but they're very very careful not to test the more exotic provisions in court.
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...
And on a slightly more ethical tip...
The FSF's writeup
And the CPSR's writeup...
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
We're on the road to Tycho.
Okay, I just read through 200-some posts, nearly all of which followed the standard "Did you hear what MS did? This means that they could [insert worst-case-scenario-du-jour here] Slashdot vein. Here's an idea for y'all: Don't use Windows Media Player! I, for one have never used it (on my machine, anyway - used it once while setting up my sister's ME box; wasn't impresed), and have never seen a need to. For music, .mp3, .wav, .au, .ogg, and many others, I use Winamp. If I want to view a video clip, I use either the Divx player or the ATI software that came with my video card. And as soon as Nullsoft releases Winamp3, I'll probably end up using it as my default video player, as well.
Winamp is free, has wonderful features, is available for Linux, and is very easy to use. Ooh, and upon checking out winamp.com, I see that there's a winamp3 release candidate!
/me goes to download!
If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
I haven't used Windows for my desktop since Slackware 3.0, but that's not very relevant anymore. As a songwriter trying to get my stuff heard I have to put it in a format that most people use to play such content: Windows users. So, if that's what my listeners will use (and, they clearly won't use anything else), that's the format I've been putting it in.
People can still get that content, but not for much longer without restrictions. Interesting thing is if I were lucky enough to get published I still wouldn't get more than 3% - 7% anyway. Most of it would go to whatever label/producer I signed over most of my rights to: Virgin, BMI, Epic, whoever. So, what do I care if my shit gets pirated.
So the only way to make a buck in this business is to drag my boards out to the clubs and play while my listeners have a few drinks and dance along. Far more pleasant than sitting in a dark room downloading Britney Spears mp3s, anyway.
Since we'll never own our machines anyway as these new laws to protect the RIAA, MPAA, and software companies get enacted, if you really want to make a statement, quit buying CD's at $20 a pop and go to an open mic, or bar and see real musicians play real music (except for Britney, of course). At least that way you can make sure artists are getting a few bucks for their efforts. Some of us actually make our own CD's and sell them to help us support ourselves, as well. You might even get to meet a real chick. >:)
Hope to see you out there...
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
i think its obvious that m$ is trying to make it so if you wanna be secure, u HAVE to use there media player. guess all security updates are gonna run through wmp now.
Competition in America: If you can't beat 'em, Sue 'em!
isn't this the same sort of "bundling" activity that got MS into trouble in the first place wrt Netscape/IE? It's not as pervasive on the front-end now (from the end-user's perspective), but it's all over the back-end... where the real money probably is. Not that I really give a crap either way -- I switched over to 100% OSS/Free software about 5 years ago, and I don't have any desire to actively trade in certain file formats. For that matter, I've only bought 2 music CD's since the format was first invented. Reason why? It didn't take long to realize what was going on in the industry, so I simply boycotted it altogether. I don't think I'm missing much either, judging by the crap on the car radio going into work this morning. The entire DVD thing was a real yawner for me; same shit, different day. When will the content owners actually take responsibility for enforcing their ownership, instead of foisting their problems (such as really antiquated business models) upon the IT industry and its users? For that matter, perhaps some of the IT industry has equally antiquated business models. Bah.
C|N>K
Generally, in this context, notification is defined by them posting a notice on the relevant web page. Like the cable companies who also use the same tactic, the page is almost impossible to find, even if you know it exists, and know what to look for. By updating that web page, they change the EULA that you are bound by. You do know where the web pages for all your EULAs are, don't you?
-Charlie
Years ago, it was a common observation that increasingly draconian and intrusive licensing agreements would lead to widespread adoption of Free and Open Source software. It hasn't been quite that dramatic, but it has been happening, mostly in Europe and elsewhere outside of the United States. But give it time -- the new MS EULA is a direct threat to corporate security. Joe Average may miss this point, but you can be sure that corporate IT security folks will flash on it as soon as they realize that they just agreed to be rooted by MS.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Unfortunately the console will never be a good platform for real-time strategy games, or first person shooters. These games require a mouse and keyboard to play. Age of Empires (published by Microsoft) was one of the best selling PC games in history. The same goes for Turn-base strategy games as well. Civ3 anyone? I am all for RMS's ideology, but until I see a great RTS/TBS game on linux I will stick with Win2k. Console are fine for driving, sports, and fighting games, but when you need maximum control and aim, a PC is the ONLY way to go.
A mission for the enraged /. reader, discover what server(s), domains, IP addresses access a windows PC to check for DRM compliance and disable software.
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.
Actualy I though it was the Empire them from StarWars?
There is a talk show I get sometime on computers that when the guys start talking about M$ you hear that theme and a cheesy Bill Gates sounding like Darth Vader.
on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
(from "The HitchHiker's Gyuide to the Galaxy")
So Lets see now this security patch gives MS
...right to install digital rights management software, and the right to disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer..."
"
While Most OS's do have the capability to circumvent DRM.
MS can't read, we will say most none MS native file system the only sure way if for MS to ensure that you are not using any program that can circumvent the DRM is to "DISABLE" those File system / partitions.
So in then end of all of this MS has found a new Legal way in which you give them permission to kill your own alternative OS.
'nuff said.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Just find somebody who is less than 18 years old to install it. Since they are a minor and therefore unable to enter into a binding contract the EULA is void.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
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
Counter-strike.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Click this button relating to the text you didn't read, and we'll automatically put software on your computer that does stuff you didn't want done. If this proves insufficient, we'll automatically install more software that you don't want.
- - -
"The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick."
Buy me a dell, gateway, or other brand-name computer, and 'chose' not to buy windows.
I dare you.
where, pre tell, is the CHOICE in that? do I get the 2.9 ghz p4 dell with 2 MB video card and windows, or do I get the 1.7 ghz Gateway with a 10 gig hard drive and 'free' 2x CD burner 'upgrade' with windows?
geeeeee choices choices.
they only 'freedom to choose' in this case is the freedom to spend a month learning how to build your own computer and two months learning how to use Linux/bsd/whatever
for the last time, i didnt do it!
If you retreive the patch via windowsupdate(only works with IE), the EULA doesn't say ANYTHING about DRM or crippling your ability to access secure content!
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 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!
You're using her as bait, Master!
It says "Download" automatically, not "Install". Also, though this is not specified, it much more seems focused on the disabiling of the features that allow secure content, rather than everything else.
I'm calling on all open source folks to email their MS code back to MS. Until there is a law or Consitutional ammendment that says I have to use their stuff I say we should have the option of returning it back to them if we don't want it.
I want to contact Microsoft and demand a security patch to Media Player 6 within the same licence as Media Player 6. I refuse to grant Microsoft authority to download code onto my machine without my authorization. I refuse to grant them the right to disable my files. I refuse to grant them to right to disable other programs at will. I demand a fix to their security hole be made available seperate from their auto-installer code.
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS02-032 says:
Technical support is available from Microsoft Product Support Services. There is no charge for support calls associated with security patches.
As far as I can tell their web site is broken. Perhaps it isn't compatible with my (non-IE) web browser. Perhaps it doesn't work within my security settings. I am fed up with fighing with their website. Perhaps someone else can figure out a way to reach them on this issue.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A Lawyer Looks At Software Licensing
by L.J. Kutten
For the past four years; many software companies have been
publicly bemoaning their losses to unauthorized duplication. They
claim for every "legal" copy sold, three or four illegal copies are
eventually distributed. When asked for proof, they do not give it.
Their only evidence is their "private" research (which they will not
submit to third party verification).
While no industry expert denies the existence of unauthorized
duplication, experts differ on whether this duplication actually
deprives a company of profits or sales. Take the following two
examples:
* A 13-year old child possesses unauthorized CP/M versions of dBase
II and Wordstar configured for the Apple II computer. He neither owns
a CP/M card nor a printer. To him, the software is like baseball
cards, the more he "owns" the better; and
* The business person who wants to try out a $800 program to make
sure it will (1) fulfill his needs, or (2) work adequately with his
hardware (perhaps there is a printer conflict). If the software does
not work, the floppy diskette containing it goes back into a pile. If
does work, a legitimate copy is purchased so the user can get support.
Whatever the real extent of the problem, companies are searching
for a solution. Many have adopted a "tear open" license agreement as
their way of handling the problem.
A typical tear open license agreement (also called "shrink wrap"
or "box top") is a one page form attached to the outside of mass
marketed software. On the form is a statement that says "OPENING THIS
PACKAGE INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGREEMENT AND THAT YOU AGREE
TO ABIDE BY ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH." Following the
statement are a set of rules and prohibition which "control" use of
the software. Typical provisions include the following:
1. Warranty disclaimer: The software is sold "AS IS." The
manufacturer totally disclaims any express or implied warranties. If
the software does not work as expected (or at all) that is the buyer's
problem and not the manufacturers;
2 Prohibition against disassembley: The program cannot be
disassembled or patched for any reason; and
3. Prohibition against resale: Under no circumstance can the
original purchaser transfer his ownership interest in the program,
whether it be by sale, lease, rental, or even by gift. If the
purchaser has no further need for the program, it must be destroyed or
returned to the manufacturer.
The software manufacturers claim that by opening the package the
user has agreed to abide by any term found on it. Not surprisingly,
users claim the forms are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Whether or not these agreements are binding is open to question.
There are no cases, at either state or federal level, to interpret
them.
The Problem With Tear Open Agreements
The enforceability of tear open agreements begins with the
proposition that (1) they are binding contracts and (2) the developer
has retained title to each individual copy of the program. The fact
that a developer has claimed they are binding contracts or he has
retained title is unimportant. A court would look at what really
occurred as opposed to what one party calls the transaction.
Are They Binding Contracts? If the license agreement is to be
binding, the manufacturer must be able to prove that both parties
considered it to be part of the contract before the sales transaction
was completed. If the agreement was not known until after the sale
was completed (e.g. the seller got paid and the buyer got the
software), then it is void. Under general principal of contract law,
no party can unilaterally add additional terms to a contract after it
has been accepted.
In a normal retail sales situation, the manufacturer can argue
that the buyer knew or should have known of the license agreement
prior to sale and thus should be bound by it. The trouble with
assumption is that a buyer would claim (1) he had no knowledge of it
and that the vendor did not mention it or (2) that the vendor did
mention it but the buyer told the vendor that he did not consider it
binding. (How many retail sellers would refuse to take the buyer's
money in such a circumstance?)
In mail order sale, the license agreement is almost never
mentioned. The first time the buyer finds out about it is after the
goods have been received. In such cases, the agreement is not worth
the paper it is printed on.
A court would also be bothered by the fact that a tear open
agreement is a contract of adhesion. That is, it is offered to the
buyer on a "take it or leave it" basis. The buyer cannot bargain
about the terms contained in it. The law does not favor adhesion
contracts and they are automatically suspect.
Finally manufacturers must realize that no court will ever
enforce a contract where the buyer pays for software and the
manufacturer, through a tear open contract, does not promise to
deliver anything.
Are They Licenses? There are a number of factors to determine
whether a license (with retained ownership) or a sale of a copy is
involved:
1. Is the license for a limited period?
2. Does the license have to be signed before the software is made
available?
3. Is more than one payment made to the "licensor?"
4. Does the "licensee" have any obligation to return its copy of the
software to the "licensor" if he has no further use of it (i.e. can he
throw it in the trash without liability)?
5. Does the "licensor" have any duties to the "licensee" to make sure
the software even works?
An answer of no to each question would indicate that the parties
really intended the transaction to be an outright sale. This is
clearly seen if you examine the license agreements for minicomputer
and mainframe computer software. These agreements are typically (1)
for a definite period of time, (2) the license agreement must be
signed by all parties prior to delivery of the software, (3) in many
instances the licensee has to pay a yearly royalty/service fee, (4)
the licensor agrees to upkeep and modify the program as necessary, and
(5) the licensee has a duty to return the software after a specified
period.
Other Problems With Tear Open Agreement: Even assuming a court
would find a tear open agreement to be a binding contract or a true
license agreement, there are many other problems that must be
resolved.
Tear open agreements may violate four provisions of Article Two
of the Uniform Commercial Code (the U.C.C.) Article Two codifies the
law of sales and it is the law in every American jurisdiction except
Louisiana.
U.C.C. |2-312 gives a dealer the power to transfer all rights,
including title, to the buyer unless the dealer gives the buyer actual
notice of the limitation. There is nothing to prevent software
manufacturers from contractually requiring its dealers to give this
written notice on their sales forms.
U.C.C. |2-513 gives the buyer the unqualified right, except in
C.O.D. sales, to inspect the goods at any reasonable time and place
before accepting them. The buyer can take the sealed package home,
remove the shrink wrap and test the software to make sure it fulfills
its advertised claims, etc. Given the fact that many software
packages require a minimum of 30-40 hours training to utilize, the
fact that a demonstration package was available or that the buyer
could try the software out a a local store (how many stores would
allow any user to tie up a machine for 35 hours to test one package)
is irrelevant. The buyer has a reasonable time to inspect the goods
and either accept or reject them.
Under U.C.C. |2-201 if the price exceeds $500, the party being
bound by a contract has to sign a writing relating to the contract.
Thus, the buyer pays $501 for a software package and did not sign the
restrictive agreement, then the terms of the agreement do not bind
him.
Many license agreements disclaim all warranties (i.e. the
software is sold "as is" and the manufacturer guarantees nothing).
Under U.C.C. |2-316 this is permissible, except whenever an express
warranty disagrees with a disclaimer, the warranty will prevail. The
law says express warranties are created by instruction manuals,
training guides, use of demonstration models, advertising and the
like. Thus any disclaimer of an express warranty is voidable.
Tear open agreement may also violate various federal and state
consumer protection statutes. It is arguable that the manufacturers
have committed fraud against the buying public in that they encourage
the public to buy their products yet do not advertise their license
restrictions. It is a deceptive trade practice under the Federal
Trade Commission Act (a federal law) to let a transaction look like a
sale when it is not. Many states have similar legislation.
Courts would also be bothered by the fact that the consumer bears
the entire risk of loss. In a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with
price fixing, the Court said that risk of loss after transfer of
possession weigh heavily in determining whether or not a sale has
taken place. If the buyer bears the entire risk of loss, it strongly
indicates a sale, and not a license took place.
Can a sale later become a license? The license says that
"opening the package" or "using the software" indicates acceptance of
the license terms. Does that mean the buyer did not accept them at
the point of purchase? If so what did he buy? If he did buy it, does
he lose or forfeit some property right upon opening the package. If
so, the manufacturers should realize that the law does not like
forfeitures of any type.
There may be an admission against interest in requiring the buyer
to sign a card acknowledging the validity of the license agreement.
Under the law, a party cannot have contradictory claims. If the
agreement is really self executing, why require the buyer to sign a
card acknowledging its validity unless the manufacturer has its own
doubts about its self execution?
There may be another admission against interest in that many
manufacturers, for income tax purpose, treat the transaction between
themselves and their dealers as sales and not licenses. Similarly, a
court would inquire into whether or not the manufacturer took returns
from its dealers. If it did not, then it indicates a sale took place.
In the same genre, manufacturers fail to control their dealers.
If they really wanted to create binding licenses they could
contractually require their dealers to have the license agreement
signed before delivery of the software. They do not do this. (Too
much trouble they claim.) Instead they exercise almost no control
over dealer's selling practices. Most dealers treat software the same
way they treat hardware. The dealer uses sales forms, invoices and
receipts that imply a sale took place.
Microsoft's Big Brother features in XP and beyond log your system usage for just such an occasion.
/. story pointing this out ... use the search feature if you really want to look it up), and presents the fact that you watched The Matrix DVD 5 days after installing the patch as proof that you "agreed" to the change in EULA terms.
However, you have to say "I didn't click agree.". You can't say "I clicked it but it shouldn't stand because it was not a signature." The burden of proof is indeed on them to show that you agreed to it.
Then Micro$oft trots out the logs on your system, where they've been tracking every movie you watch and every song you play (I'm not going to bother to link to the previous
Which of course, is akin to someone agreeing to sell the first born, with a gun to their head.
Of course, you could simply dump Windows and run GNU/Linux, and accept whatever tradeoffs that requires because at least then you would be a free person not subject to nonsense like this at all, and not required to live in fear of the Long Arm of Microsoft, the BSA, or Hollywood.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
My wife worked at a clothing store and she said they didn't require the customers signature until the price was over $50. I think it was Limited Express.
Anyway, The EULA is changed wether he accepts the patch or not right? Or is M$ somehow bound to prove the user received notification before they can change the terms?
let M$ do what they want to... like always, we'll hack it anayway...
I don't understand why anyone cries over this. If you don't like what M$ is doing, screw them and don't use their fscking bugs^H^H software. Here are some hints: FreeBSD RedHat Linux If ze Germans can, so can you!
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I don't know whether licencing laws have different ground rules though
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! - Antonio Gramsci.
Sadly, at least from a legal perspective, that's not currently true.
There was an interesting discussion on /. recently about the nature of software engineering, whether professionals could/should have to certify that software meets certain basic standards and -- accept liability to match -- and so forth. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that would be unacceptable in such an environment. (NB: The issue here is not with MS wanting to impose draconian licensing terms, it's with the fact that they're effectively forcing you to adopt them because something you already paid for doesn't work acceptably. It's the latter that would get picked up with the liability proposals, so you always have the choice of not using the new software without prejudice, and hence not accepting the new terms if you don't like them.)
However, for now, we have to rely on the market economy to do this for us. If MS carry on as they are -- producing more and more seriously flawed software and/or imposing more and more draconian limitations on those who pay for it -- then their business will simply evaporate. They have a near monopoly today, but there are perfectly credible alternatives for the vast majority of people.
It is quite plausible that the whole industry could switch to using Macs, UNIX/Linux or some alternative option in a matter of 5 years. You can get word processors, accounting software, internet apps and any other mainstream applications you like on all of these platforms. In many cases, they are at least as functional complete as the Windows-based equivalents, and many lack the reliability and/or security flaws that dog mainstream Windows apps. MS' big commercial advantage at present is purely down to the fact that "everyone has it" and going with the vast majority is a no-brainer for corporate ITheads.
If you think this is far-fetched, consider the history of web browsers, Intel/AMD chips, word processing packages, and so on. In all cases, there have been near-100% penetration products that have lost catastrophic market share to favour of an alternative that was markedly superior in some way. If the momentum starts failing for Microsoft -- and there is a distinct danger of that at present, as they well know -- then the market could shift in a couple of corporate upgrade cycles (the first one for those who are really pissed off, the second one because there would no longer be the "everyone else uses MS so we use MS" factor).
Keep the faith. The IT world is dumb, but it isn't that dumb.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
MNG is a "sister" format to PNG does does indeed support multiple images and "animated" images. MNG is well supported by the free Unices; I'm not sure about Windows and Mac.
This is what gPhoto and SANE are for. I am feeling better and better about the Microsoft habit I kicked. Those assholes in Redmond are definitely outgrowing their britches and need a spanking.
"MNG (pronounced ``ming''), is short for Multiple-image Network Graphics, as one might gather from the title of this page. Designed with the same modular philosophy as PNG and by many of the same people, MNG is intended to provide a home for all of the multi-image capabilities that have no place in PNG. "
Care to read more?
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
If I were dumb enough to put any kind of M$ crap on that system, I might not be able to turn off that particular "security" feature. It's also possible that M$'s auto installed software can make the same mistake and proactivly relieve me of lilo.
I don't really care about listening to music on my PC. I know, I know, it's the best thing since a snake sweet talked Eve, whatever, my CDs are hoplessly difficult to use on set top boxes, blah blah blah. I use my computers for, gasp, calculations, email, browsing, picture manipulation, ftp serving and other little things. Free software has proved itself far far superior to comercial junk. I've only got one M$ box for talking to cameras and scanners. I'm not changing out WMP if I can help it. The first toy I buy that breaks my other software, so that I really can't use any of my other devices on that machine, is a new toy that gets taken back to the store with a loud demand that I have my money back and someone else rebuilds the box.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
My second reaction: Oh, well. I don't run Windows, so no problem.
My third reaction: What if this kind of EULA migrates to hardware? What if the next box, or drive, you buy is only "licensed" to you, and the act of purchasing that license gives MS, or the government, to add or delete code from your machine at as they see fit?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There is also the Macintosh:
Pros: Extremely easy to use, rock solid OS [...]
Cons: Mac OS X still a young OS and there will be bumps in the road. [...]
My wife has a Mac with OS 9.2 and OS X (10.1.4). And while the user interface is useable (far from perfect, but compares very well to Windows and KDE/Gnome), both OS 9 and OS X are not rock solid. And it's not the hardware (e.g. bad RAM) as we changed to a new Mac lately and OS 9 and OS X freeze once in a while (about twice in a week).
I like OS X (the GUI and how well it all works), but the myth of the stable MacOS is just that. And while applications could cause this freezing, on OS X thaat should never ever happen.
The camera software screwed up the scanner software. I did try to reinstall the scanner software, but it just broke the camera software without repairing the scanner functionality. It seems obvious that the camera changed out all sorts of dlls and what not that only marginally had anything to do with the camera itself. The scanner software, being much older, was more honest and assumed that M$ softare would be at the other side of API calls.
In any case, the result is the same. I lost functionality, and picture formats were drastically changed. Bit maps produced by the crappy M$ imaging program don't even work with Pain Brush. Go figure, they broke bitmaps. Did the camera software change out the imaging program itself, hmmm I can check.
--quick ssh into wife's computer --
find imaging is kodakimg.exe from may 11 1998.
This is useless info. There is no telling what dlls are called without much more work. The twain dlls are all from 1997, but of course there are a couple from 2000 and 2001, and the Program Files for my devices have their own way of doing things. Like I said, the method is not as important as the result and the demonstration of that result.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Once again, Penny-Arcade has beaten everyone to the punch. This is from way back: 2001-04-04
4 -04&res=l
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-0
Actually the legality is the only problem here. Any technical measures used to enforce the EULA are just cracker fodder. They WILL be broken, and in short order. If you don't believe me, go look at the evidence.
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
"So if you want your machine secure, you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC."
I thought it was "If you want your machine secure, don't use Windows." (obligatory stab)
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
What could be a better gig than to infiltrate the government and then start shaving those pennies off the taxdollars. How much money do think is unaccounted for for the last year in the Federal Government? A million? Hundred million? Billion? How about around 100 billion. I'm just guessing about the mob thing, but what if it were true? Would you want the mob rewriting the constitution so it wouldn't get in their way? Would you? Does it have to be the stereotypical mob that you see on television? Does it even have to be the proper mob, or even have connections with the historical mob, if they are acting in the same ways? Do you realize that all the members of the significant corporate boards sit on each others tables? It's like a big family I guess. Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, etc. This is organized crime. And they've got the ear of lawmakers. Maybe they are some of the lawmakers. How long will the United States be able to maintain this level of corruption before things start to unravel? Well, since the Bush Fraud Mass-Murdering Criminal Family has taken over once again this has happened. Where is the 2.3 Trillion Dollars? By Max Emfinger5 71.html?noredir=1
Congresswoman McKinney has asked that we investigate whether the
reports by numerous mainstream press that we had been warned are true and why
they failed to help protect us. She has also asked why there is $2.3
trillion missing at the Pentagon as confirmed by Secretary Rumsfeld in
Congressional Testimony before the Armed Services Committee of which
Congresswoman McKinney is a member. 0 010.html
A General Accounting Office report in April said hundreds of
billions of dollars in the $1.2 trillion of Property, Plant and Equipment across
the federal government were not adequately supported by financial and/or
logistical records. The report also found that DoD has $5.2 billion in missing
inventory. The Pentagon claims that Selected Acquisition Reports can be used to
determine individual weapons costs, but Taxpayers For Common Sense said that the
acquisition reports are not auditable and other records that might yield total
weapons costs are completely inaccurate.
http://www.infowar.com/mil_c4i/mil_c4i_060898a_j.h tml-ssi
Of course, we can blame the accountants (Lockheed Martin), but
that wouldn't be fair to all of the other thieves. The Bush Fraud
Mass-Murdering Criminal Family has stolen TRILLIONS and America is
suffering the result.
If you add in the Soviet/Asian oil fields, the CIA attack on
the World Trade Centers to allow the Afghan Oil Pipeline, and China getting free
manufacturing tech from greedy and stupid American execs like Black & Decker
and Tyco then what happens if China closed its trade with us and grabbed the
untapped oil fields for themselves? Thank Wal-Mart folks. That is
the gateway for China's power-leverage against America.
www.almartinraw.com
pretty much has everything you'd need to know about the Bush Fraud
Mass-Murdering Criminal Family and then some.
Date: May 12, 2002 http://maxemfingerrecruiting.theinsiders.com/2/47
http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/200204/msg0
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
Current-day practice is not to have a "tear-open" agreement, but, instead, the agreement is presented when the user attempts to install the software. The user had no knowledge of the agreement's existence, let alone its terms, when the user paid for the software. By this lawyer's logic, that makes the agreement null and void.
Click-wrap licenses usually tell the reader to return the software to its place of purchase for a full refund, if the user refuses to be bound by it. Unfortunately, the place of purchase will generally not take it back or refund the user, as an understandable matter of policy (they have no way of knowing if you copied the distribution media prior to returning the software). However, this effectively means that the user is forced to either accept the terms of the agreement, or not use the software and let it rot, since they can't get it refunded.
Often, click-wrap licenses state that opening the package constitutes acceptance. However, you didn't even see the license until you attempted to install the software (which obviously happens after opening the package).
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
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
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
GDIVX 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. 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.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
"Hello there, I'd like to purchase a new Vehical."
"Here ya' go. It comes free with this Two-Hundred Dollar Motor."
"Wow! That's a great deal"
"Sure is!"
[drives off]
[-one day later-]
"This car, actually, it has no brakes. I didnt realize it before because I'm a shitty driver."
"That's okay, I'll fix it for free."
"Oh, well yeah, I think you're legally obligated to."
"Yep."
"Thanks."
"But that car? I own it now, K?"
"..."
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
on how long it takes someone to reverse engineer media player's automatic update feature. Oh my won't we be seeing some very interesting viri then!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I was just thinking.. Don't EULAs usually state that if you at any point decide that you can not comply with the EULA, you must uninstall the program or part of program (in this case the patch) the EULA came with?
Because the Windows Update website states quite clearly that the update can not be uninstalled. So.. how exactly can I make use of the rights I have concerning the EULA, when this been made impossible?
Be aware that the poster stated in the title of his thread that the lawyer's comments are from 20 years ago. Since then, intellectual property laws have become more intrusive, illogicial, and insane.
- - -
"The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick."
Agree. Aluminium `the eternal metal' was once rare and precious.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Then they would be in breach of copyright law.
The GPL does not place any restrictions on anyone that are not already in place thanks to copyright law. Instead, it grants extra rights (the right to copy and redistribute) that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright.
In this sense, it is the opposite of most commercial EULAs.
Why not read it? "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to copy, distribute or modify the OC..."
Get Goldwave (www.goldwave.com) I have the latest and it will convert (even batch converting is supported) from wma to wav and if you download the plugins you can convert to mp3 and ogg
they are called excel and directX. Work requires these heinously complex excell workbooks that every other office suite I've ever used has failed to render correctly. That is probably M$'s fault and not the other office suite but I have no choice in that matter. The directX part is because I like to game, I like to play new games, not wait for a port to be coded. I like to play online games when they are still popular. While Linux is begginning to see some games it may be a while before Grand Theft Auto 3 runs, or say Soldier of Fortune 2. I'd LOVE to be able to do away with M$ is lieu of Linux, but it has got to fill all my needs first of all.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This post is to cancel a moderation that went wrong.
-- RTFM:Slackware::Beer:Saturday
When it will become or already is one big
backdoor for the NSA and CIA and music industry?
Anyway, here is a site where you can download an old version (7.0).
Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
zoloto wrote:
;)
> You've neither agreed to the EULA, and you're
> protecting your system by patching it.
Unfortunately, while your method may keep one from agreeing to the EULA, it hasn't disabled any of Microsoft's software that carries out the problematic actions the EULA warns about.
The only thing your method does is enabling a person to use the software without agreeing to its license. Congrats, you just found a new way to invoke the wrath of the BSA!
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millenium" (Japanese version)
Don't worry, Godzilla stopped it!
After seeing your topic I made a decision not to read your post; however, I have an idea of what point you're trying to make and I will respond to that. As long as the other party is forewarned that a certain action will constitute agreeing to the agreement and all of its terms (as you did with your topic) then he is rightfully bound by the terms set forth.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
It doesn't serve any purpose for Microsoft to disable file sharing applications or remove copyrighted content. Given the importance of P2P filesharing these days, it would be like removing a few of your limbs! Think of it, MS machines *can* do Filesharing without all of the legal ramifications. You must then ask, why would they shoot themselves in the foot?
Copied directly from the first line of the privacy.txt file that comes bundled with Windows Media Player:
"Microsoft respects your privacy and designed Windows Media Player to give you control over the transfer of your personal data."
I won't even try to point out the obvious flaws with this statement. I nearly wet myself from laughing after reading just the first four words of that thing out loud.
As troll's go, you have good style, my friend. Feels like shades of Huxley and Orwell... What have you been reading lately? But I digress.
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
We're on the road to Tycho.
Have you looked at what software companies have set up offices in those two states lately?
Once again, IANAL, but it seems plausible to me that if the company that makes the software decides that their case against you should be tried in their "home state" of MD or VA, it really matters whether your own state has adopted UCITA or not.
-Dave
We're on the road to Tycho.
I gracriously concede the point. FYI, UCITA was orchestrated through the NCCUSL.
They're marketing it to all the states. A number of others are considering it - the big selling points seems to be "attracting software industry to your state."
Well, their lawyers at least.
-Dave
We're on the road to Tycho.
The Register also has this story here.
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
I'd like to know, what if someone hacked into the EULA, changed it, could that be legally binding?
What is the difference between what MS does, and what the person that hacked into it did? I mean, you still pressed I agree, it still would have MS's agreement, it is like someone making a change to a contract on the second to last revision. Its done all the time, why not here?
As an example, my publisher
Does not hold a monopoly on publishing.
Will I retire or break 10K?
[Unlike PNG, TIFF] Works in existing and legacy software packages.
Not all legacy software packages will read images in all 7 versions of TIFF with all codecs. Sometimes, you have to use ImageMagick or something to convert TIFF images to a version of TIFF that your software understands, and by then, you can use IM to convert PNG images.
Will I retire or break 10K?
> 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.
Actually, the company would be committing theft of services (processor time and hard disk space) without some license that was at least implicit.
here.
Who decides what is and isn't secure?
/.'ers may be able to handle their own security. But the world in general cannot. If this is a democracy, majority rules. And the minority has to either put up with it, or live in such a way to circumvent/adapt to/add on to what is legally put in place while not breaking through it (law).
1) You allow a 3rd party organization to determine everything that is secure - one source, one standard (eg 'bad' MS)
2) You allow individuals to determine for themselves what is secure and malicious, and have them handle all the work of protection themselves.
You could argue a 1.5 where we imply a democracy on security, where majority rules what is and isn't secure and employs an organization ruled by that vote on what to do. But, sadly enough, most people just don't care and would rather someone else do all the dirty work. Especially when it's as tedious as software security.
Why do you trust Norton?
Why do you trust your home security company?
Why do you trust the police?
At some point, there must be one source or standard for general security. Replace Microsoft with 'Place a company name here' and still, how many people would complain that they're giving over their rights to someone else to determine what's right and wrong? Some people in the world, like techies and
That's one of the reasons linux is so appealing to many people... finding ways to do things your own way.
AFAIK there's still no IPTC support in PNG.
Then define your own IPTC chunk. If you're worried that one implementation of PNG IPTC won't read data written by others, propose a chunk definition to the PNG team. Or simply store XML in the comment chunk.
Will I retire or break 10K?
All I can say is "I Love Linux!"
(changing at any time, etc) lets not turn this into a flaming bucket of 'EVIL corporations.' If we regulated the snot out of corporations to the point they were in essence state companies this would still happen.
I do not call for regulation. I call for judicial recognition that a so called 'contract' that restricts one party while giving the other carte blanch is no contract at all.
Further, I call on the FTC and DOJ to recognize that making a transaction look like a sale and then revealing only after the fact that it is a license agreement only is fundamentally fraudulant.
As for EVIL corporations, I fail to see how the deplorable condition of the judicial system in the U.S. alleviates them of any responsability for unethical (but legal) behaviour.
From your example, the fact that you would crack the necks of the gang members indicates that you yourself do not believe that legal protection equates to ethical behaviour.
In summary, I want legal reform as a solution to the problem, and still consider the corporations who take advantage of the sorry state of current affairs to be deeply unethical.
What happens if, when you look at Windows, you begin to twitch uncontrolably, and, durning one of these spasims, you hit the enter key? I can't believe they even have these licenses. A license like this would never work in the real world.
------------------------------
Kompressor use logic.
Probably someone from the RIAA givin gates head to get this bullshit out ....
Makes you wonder what in the hell is really going on with that new so-called "anti-terrorist" bill where the government thinks that they have the right to spy on ur puter...
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
OMFG !@!@!@ this is just a little too true ... fucking scary isn't it
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
like every other piece of software that is out there.. isn't reverse engineering great...?
for all the m$ people designing this crap there are 100's to 1 "reverse engineering" it
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
there were 100's of posts all over the internet about how XP reports EVERYTHING you do to M$.. and probably the federal government too..
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN