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.
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?
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
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'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)
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.
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.
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
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.
...
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
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...
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.
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.
Come on. The second anyone finds that Winamp's been disabled because of something Windows Media Player installed behind the scenes, Microsoft will be fighting back a shitstorm unlike any other it's faced. I find it highly unlikely you'll log into your Windows machine one morning and find nothing will work other than Windows Media Player.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
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?
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.
You can remove wmplayer.exe and rename mplayer2.exe (in the same directory) to wmplayer.exe
That's a start
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
-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.
I could be totally wrong (which I probably am)... Isn't there something illegal about Microsoft disabling (thereby 'destroying') items from YOUR computer (YOUR property)??
(This Space For Rent)
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?
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....
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.
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?
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
Nope. Microsoft screwed up their product, and has thereby incurred an obligation to fix it. They may not attach extra strings to that obligation, any more than a bratty child may demand ice cream as the price for cleaning up the mess he just made.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
*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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
You're ignoring the fact that you're free to choose not to use any Microsoft products at all if you want.
And you're ignoring the fact that this is talking about stuff that people have already paid for.What would Lemmy do?
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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.
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
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
How does that deal with the "we reserve the right to change the terms of the EULA, without notification, at ANY TIME" problem?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
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.
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
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.
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")
'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
The license at issue has nothing to do with windows media player, except that the license change happened to be distributed with the patch. If you read the actual words of the license, it says that they might alter the core operating system itself, and those changes may disable playback and/or copying of any material they determine you do not have rights to, including disabling any software that attempts to copy the material.
This goes WAY beyond windows media player.
I'm imagining some general at the pentagon trying to email a critical word document and being unable to send out this critical document because some airman accidentally left it read-only-don't-distribute.
At the core of this issue is the idea that a company can at any time alter the conditions under which you may use a product you purchased in the past, without calling it a new product.
Here's a silly what-if example - Imagine if the electric company came out to install a ground-fault circuit in your home with the stated purpose of protecting against short circuits, but then sent out a notice in the mail saying that the new circuits will detect unauthorized devices in your home and disable them if the power company determines that they could be used to violate copyrights, and that further use of their electricity constitutes agreement to their new "service".
Silly? Absolutely, but it's the same thing that microsoft is doing. They've released a series of utilities which people have purchased under one useage agreement, and now they are not only altering that usage agreement while distributing the fix to a product flaw, they also claim the right to disable any other product used in conjunction with their product that violates their new usage agreement.
Now compare this to the hardware DRM solution MS is pushing onto chip and motherboard makers (palladium?), and the picture becomes clearer.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=35096&cid=3792 597
cut and paste
Get your Unix fortune now!
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
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.
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"
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.
MNG, an extension to PNG, supports all of the above
But not PNG. TIFF was designed as the ultimate all-purpose image format, and does that job well. PNG was designed as the ultimate web image format, and does that job well. Adding stuff to PNG until it can do everything doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
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.
There comes a problem when using the new auto-update feature. It will automatically download and install updates with few or no prompts at all. When I updated Media Player, I didn't have to go to any websites nor did I have to click on any agreements. As such, my EULA was changed without any notice.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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!
Agree. Aluminium `the eternal metal' was once rare and precious.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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 ?
Yes you can. You have about 1 sec before it gets copied back. Or from a DOS prompt, move the mplayer2.exe to wmplayer.exe.
What I did was copy the wmplayer.exe name to the clipboard, delete wmplayer.exe and quickly renamed mplayer.exe
XP will then be helpfull and restore mplayer2.exe for you. It only looks at the file name not the size or anything else.
When it will become or already is one big
backdoor for the NSA and CIA and music industry?
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!
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.
> 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.
> 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.
The point you're missing is, MS no longer has to give a damn about being unpopular with customers. MS execs aren't exactly crying rivers over the fact that people are "indifferent" about Microsoft; most of those same people are probably booting up Windows and Office because from their point of view there is no other choice. Yea, there are other OSs, but what those people are interested in is functionality and content and MS can fight tooth and nail to ensure that they are the only way of delivering that.
About the only thing that could be done legally to prevent them at this point would be to drop the bomb on the applications barrier by creating a law regarding Aiding And Abetting Antitrust.
here.
(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.